WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DS/OV/23 
7 April 2005 
 (05-1457) 
  
  
 
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 2 OCTOBER 2004 UNTIL 31 MARCH 2005) 
 
WT/DS No. Short Title Action Section 
WT/DS329 
 Panama – Milk Products Request for consultations I.A.1 
WT/DS328 EC – Salmon 
 Request for consultations  
Request to join consultations Acceptance of request to join consultations I.A.2 
WT/DS327 
 Egypt – Matches  Request for consultations I.A.3 
WT/DS326 
 EC – Salmon  Request for consultations 
Request to join consultations 
Acceptance of request to join consultations I.A.4 
WT/DS325 US – Stainless Steel  Request for consultations  
Request to join consultations  I.A.5 
WT/DS324 US – Shrimp  Request for consultations  
Request to join consultations  I.B.1 
WT/DS323 
 Japan – Laver  Request for consultations  
Request for establishment of a panel  
Establishment of a panel II.A.1 
WT/DS322 US –Zeroing and Sunset Reviews Request for consultations  
Request to join consultations  
Request for establishment of a panel 
Establishment of a panel II.A.1 
WT/DS321 
WT/DS320 EC –Hormones  Request for consultations  
Request to join consultations 
Acceptance of request to join consultations 
Request for establishment of a panel Establishment of a panel II.A.3 
II.A.4 
WT/DS319  US – Section 773  of the Tariff 
Act of 1930 Request for consultations I.B.2 
WT/DS318 India – Anti-Dumping Measures 
on Certain Products Request for consultations  I.B.3 
WT/DS317  EC and Certain Member States –
Trade in Large Civil Aircraft  Request for consultations I.B.4 
WT/DS316 US – Trade in Large Civil Aircraft Request for consultations I.B.5 
WT/DS315  EC – Selected Customs Matters Request to join consultations 
Request for establishment of a panel  Establishment of a panel 
 II.A.5 WT/DS/OV/23 
Page ii  
 
 WT/DS No. Short Title Action Section 
WT/DS313 EC – Anti-Dumping Duties on 
Steel Products  Notification of a mutually agreed solution  VII.A.45 
WT/DS312 Korea – Anti-Dumping Duties on 
Paper Constitution of the panel  II.A.1 
WT/DS302 Dominican Republic – Import and 
Sale of Cigarettes Notification of appeal  IV.A.1 
WT/DS296 
 US – Countervailing Duty 
Investigation on DRAMs 
 Circulation of Panel report  
Notification of appeal IV.A.2 
WT/DS290 
WT/DS174 EC – Trademarks and 
Geographical Indications Circulation of Panel reports III.A.1 
WT/DS285 US – Gambling  
 Resumption of the panel proceedings  
Circulation of  Panel report  
Notification of appeal  IV.A.2 
WT/DS283 
WT/DS266 WT/DS265 EC – Export Subsidies on Sugar  Circulation of Panel report 
Extension of 60-day period after circulation Notification of appeal  IV.A.4 
WT/DS277 US – Softwood Lumber VI Information on implementation  
Request for the establishment of a panel under 
Article 21.5  Request for authorization to suspend 
concessions under Article 22.2 
Referral to arbitration under Article 22.6 Agreement on Procedures under Articles 21 
and 22 of the DSU 
Establishment of a panel under Article 21.5 
Suspension of arbitration under Article 22.6 II.B.1 
VI.68 
WT/DS276 Canada – Wheat Exports and 
Grain Imports Information of intention to implement  
Agreement under Article 21.3(b)  VI.67 
WT/DS273 Korea – Commercial Vessels 
 Circulation of Panel report III.A.2 
WT/DS268 US – Oil Country Tubular Goods 
Sunset Reviews  Circulation of Appellate Body report 
Adoption of Appellate Body and Panel reports 
Information of intention to implement Request for arbitration under Article 21.3(c) 
Extension of time period under Article 21.3(c) V.A.81 
VI.66 
WT/DS267 US – Upland Cotton  Notification of appeal 
Circulation of Appellate Body report Adoption of Appellate Body and Panel reports  V.A.81 
WT/DS264 US – Softwood Lumber V 
 Request for arbitration under Article 21.3(c)  
Agreement under Article 21.3(b) 
Circulation of Arbitration Report under Article 21.3(c) VI.65 
WT/DS257  US- Softwood Lumber IV 
 Request for the establishment of a panel under 
Article 21.5  
Request for authorization to suspend 
concessions under Article 22.2 
Referral to arbitration under Article 22.6 Agreement on Procedures under Articles 21 
and 22 of the DSU 
Suspension of arbitration under Article 22.6 Establishment of a panel under Article 21.5  II.B.2 
VI.64 
WT/DS234 WT/DS217 US – Offset Act (Byrd 
Amendment) Request for authorization to suspend 
concessions under Article 22.7  
Understanding between the parties with respect  to the dispute VI.55  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page iii 
 
 
 WT/DS No. Short Title Action Section 
WT/DS212   US – Countervailing Measures on 
Certain EC Products  Constitution of  the panel under Article 21.5  II.B.4 
VI.53 
WT/DS176 
 US – Section 211 Appropriations 
Act Extension of the reasonable period of time for 
implementation  VI.42 
WT/DS108 US – FSC Request for consultations under Article 21.5  
Request to join consultations 
Request for establishment of a panel under 
Artile 21.5 Establishment of a panel under Article 21.5 II.B.5 
VI.25 
 
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  329 25 84 45 27 
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  5 12 16 15 
EXPLANATORY NOTES: 
1 This category encompasses pending or suspended pa nel 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 procee dings pursuant to Article 22.6 and 22.7 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the 
Subsidies Agreement. 
4 This category covers author izations granted by the WTO pursuant to Ar ticle 22.7 of the DSU and Article 4.10 of 
the Subsidies Agreement. 
 WT/DS/OV/23 
Page iv  
 
 ANALYSIS OF COMPLAINTS BY DEVELOPED/DEVELOPING MEMBERS 
 
COMPLAINTS BY DEVELOPED COUNTRY MEMBERS 
Respondents – Developed 127 
Respondents – Developing 75 
COMPLAINTS BY DEVELOPING COUNTRY MEMBERS 
Respondents – Developed 70 
Respondents – Developing 51 
COMPLAINTS BY BOTH DEVELOPED AND DEVELOPING COUNTRY MEMBERS 
Respondents – Developed 6 
Respondents – Developing 0  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page v 
 
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS 
Page  
I. CONSULTATIONS REQUESTED – NO PANEL ESTABLISHED NOR 
SETTLEMENT NOTIFIED (MOST RE CENT LISTED FIRST).......................................1  
A. YEAR  2005........................................................................................................................... ......1  
1. WT/DS329 – Panama – Tariff Classifica tion of Certain Milk Products ............................1  
2. WT/DS328 – European Communities – Defen itive Safeguard Measure on Salmon...........1  
3. WT/DS327 – Egypt – Anti-Dumping Duties on Matches from Pakistan ............................2  
4. WT/DS326 – European Communities – Defen itive Safeguard Measure on Salmon...........3  
5. WT/DS325 – United States – Anti-Dumping Determinations Regarding Stainless 
Steel from Mexico .............................................................................................................. .4 
B. YEAR  2004........................................................................................................................... ......4  
1. WT/DS324 – United States – Provisional An ti-Dumping Measures on Shrimp from 
Thailand....................................................................................................................... .......4  
2. WT/DS319 – United States – Section 776 of the Tariff Act of 1930 ...................................5  
3. WT/DS318 – India – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Products from the 
Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu ................................5  
4. WT/DS317 – United States – Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft ...............6  
5. WT/DS316 – European Communities and C ertain Member States – Measures 
Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft ..............................................................................7  
6. WT/DS314 – Mexico – Provisional Coun tervailing Measures on Olive Oil from 
the EC ......................................................................................................................... ........8  
7. WT/DS311 – United States – Reviews of Countervailing Duty on Softwood Lumber 
from Canada .................................................................................................................... ...8 
8. WT/DS310 – United States Determination of the International Trade Commission 
in Hard Red Spring Wheat from Canada............................................................................9  
9. WT/DS307 – European Communities – Aid for Commercial Vessels.................................9  
10. WT/DS306 – India – Anti-Dumping Measure on Batteries from Bangladesh ..................10  
C. YEAR  2003........................................................................................................................... ....11  
1. WT/DS305 – Egypt – Measures Affecting Impor ts of Textile and Apparel Products .......11  
2. WT/DS304 – India – Anti-Dumping Measu res on Imports of Certain Products 
from the  European Communities .....................................................................................11  
3. WT/DS303 – Ecuador – Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Medium 
Density Fibreboard...........................................................................................................12  
4. WT/DS300 – Dominican Republic – Measures Affecting the Importation of Cigarettes..................................................................................................................... .....12
 
5. WT/DS298 – Mexico – Certain Pricing Me asures for Customs Valuation and 
Other Purposes ................................................................................................................. 13 
6. WT/DS297 – Croatia – Measure Affecting Imports of Live Animals and Meat 
Products....................................................................................................................... .....13  
7. WT/DS289 – Czech Republic– Additional Du ty on Imports of Pig Meat from 
Poland......................................................................................................................... ......14  
8. WT/DS288 – South Africa – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Blanketing 
from Turkey.................................................................................................................... ...14 
D. YEAR  2002........................................................................................................................... ....15  
1. WT/DS279 – India – Import Restrictions Maintained under the Export and Import 
Policy 2002-2007..............................................................................................................1 5 
2. WT/DS278 – Chile – Definitive Safeguard Me asure on Imports of Fructose...................15  
3. WT/DS275 – Venezuela – Import Licensing Measures on Certain Agricultural 
Products....................................................................................................................... .....16  WT/DS/OV/23 
Page vi  
 
 4.
 WT/DS274 – United States – Definitive Safe guard Measures on Imports of Certain 
Steel Products ................................................................................................................. ..16 
5. WT/DS272 – Peru – Provisional Anti-Dump ing Duties on Vegetable Oils from 
Argentina ...................................................................................................................... ....17  
6. WT/DS271 – Australia – Certain Measures Affecting the Importation of Fresh 
Pineapple ...................................................................................................................... ....17  
7. WT/DS263 – European Communities – Measur es Affecting Imports of Wine..................18  
8. WT/DS262 – United States – Sunset Reviews of Anti-Dumping and Countervailing 
Duties on Certain Steel Products from France and Germany..........................................18  
9. WT/DS256 – Turkey – Import Ban on Pet Food from Hungary .......................................18  
10. WT/DS247 – United States – Provisional Anti-Dumping Measure on Imports of 
Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada...........................................................................19  
E. YEAR  2001........................................................................................................................... ....19  
1. WT/DS242 – European Communities – Generalized System of Preferences ...................19  
2. WT/DS239 – United States – Anti-Dumping Du ties on Silicon Metal from Brazil...........20  
3. WT/DS233 – Argentina – Measures Aff ecting the Import of Pharmaceutical 
Products....................................................................................................................... .....20  
4. WT/DS230 – Chile – Safeguard Measu res and Modification of Schedules 
regarding Sugar................................................................................................................ 21 
5. WT/DS229 – Brazil – Anti-Dumping Duties on Jute Bags from India .............................21  
6. WT/DS226 – Chile – Provisional Safeguard Measure on Mixtures of Edible Oils ..........22  
7. WT/DS225 – United States – Anti-Dumping du ties on Seamless Pipe from Italy.............22  
8. WT/DS224 – United States – US Patents Code ................................................................22  
9. WT/DS223 – European Communities – Tariff- Rate Quota on Corn Gluten Feed 
from the United States.......................................................................................................23  
10. WT/DS220 – Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard Measures relating to 
Certain Agricultural Products ..........................................................................................23  
F. YEAR  2000........................................................................................................................... ....24  
1. WT/DS218 – United States- Countervailing Duties on Certain Carbon Steel 
Products from Brazil.........................................................................................................24  
2. WT/DS216 – Mexico – Provisional Anti-Dumping Measure on Electric Transformers................................................................................................................... ..24
 
3. WT/DS215 – Philippines – Anti-Dumping Measures regarding Polypropylene 
Resins from Korea ............................................................................................................24  
4. WT/DS209 – European Communities – Measur es Affecting Soluble Coffee....................25  
5. WT/DS208 – Turkey – Anti-Dumping Duty on Steel and Iron Pipe Fittings ....................25  
6. WT/DS205 – Egypt – Import Prohibition on Canned Tuna with Soybean Oil .................25  
7. WT/DS203 – Mexico – Measures Affecting Trade in Live Swine .....................................26  
8. WT/DS201 – Nicaragua – Measures Aff ecting Imports from Honduras and 
Colombia (II) .................................................................................................................. ..26 
9. WT/DS200 – United States – Section 306 of the Trade Act of 1974 and 
Amendments Thereto.........................................................................................................26  
10. WT/DS197 – Brazil – Measures on Minimum Import Prices ...........................................27  
11. WT/DS191 – Ecuador – Definitive Anti-Du mping Measure on Cement from 
Mexico......................................................................................................................... ......27  
12. WT/DS187 – Trinidad and Tobago – Provisional Anti-Dumping Measure on 
Macaroni and Spaghetti from Costa Rica.........................................................................27  
13. WT/DS186 – United States – Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 and 
Amendments Thereto.........................................................................................................27  
G. YEAR  1999........................................................................................................................... ....28   WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page vii 
 
 
 1. WT/DS185 – Trinidad and Tobago – Certain Measures Affecting Imports of Pasta 
from Costa Rica ................................................................................................................ 28 
2. WT/DS183 – Brazil – Measures on Import Li censing and Minimum Import Prices ........28  
3. WT/DS182 – Ecuador – Provisional Anti -Dumping Measure on Cement from 
Mexico......................................................................................................................... ......28  
4. WT/DS180 – United States – Reclassifica tion of Certain Sugar Syrups ..........................28  
5. WT/DS172 – European Communities – Measur es Relating to the Development of 
a Flight Management System............................................................................................29  
6. WT/DS173 – France – Measures Relating to the Development of a Flight Management System..........................................................................................................29
 
7. WT/DS168 – South Africa – Anti-Dumping Duties on the Import of Certain Pharmaceutical Products from India................................................................................29
 
8. WT/DS167 – United States – Countervailing Duty Investigation with respect to Live Cattle from Canada...................................................................................................30
 
9. WT/DS159 – Hungary – Safeguard Measure on Im ports of Steel Products from the 
Czech Republic ................................................................................................................. 30 
10. WT/DS158 – European Communities – Regi me for the Importation, Sale and 
Distribution of Bananas II ................................................................................................30  
11. WT/DS157 – Arge ntina – Anti-Dumping Measures  on Imports of Drill Bits from 
Italy .......................................................................................................................... .........31  
H. YEAR  1998........................................................................................................................... ....31  
1. WT/DS154 – European Communities – Meas ures Affecting Differential and 
Favourable Treatment of Coffee.......................................................................................31  
2. WT/DS153 – European Communities – Patent  Protection for Pharmaceutical and 
Agricultural Products .......................................................................................................31  
3. WT/DS150 – India – Measures Affecting Custom Duties .................................................32  
4. WT/DS149 – India – Import Restrictions..........................................................................32  
5. WT/DS148 – Czech Re public – Measure Affecting Import Duty on Wheat from 
Hungary ........................................................................................................................ ....32  
6. WT/DS147 – Japan – Tariff Quotas an d Subsidies Affecting Leather..............................32  
7. WT/DS145 – Argentina – Countervailing Duties on Imports of Wheat Gluten from 
the European Communities...............................................................................................33  
8. WT/DS144 – United States – Certain Measures Affecting the Import of Cattle, Swine and Grain from Canada .........................................................................................33
 
9. WT/DS143 – Slovak Republic – Measure Affecting Import Duty on Wheat from Hungary ........................................................................................................................ ....33
 
10. WT/DS140 – European Communities – Anti- Dumping Investigations Regarding 
Unbleached Cotton Fabrics from India............................................................................34  
11. WT/DS137 – European Communities – Measur es Affecting Imports of Wood of 
Conifers from Canada.......................................................................................................34  
12. WT/DS134 – European Communities – Measures  Affecting Import Duties on Rice........34  
13. WT/DS133 – Slovak Republic – Measures Concerning the Importation of Dairy 
Products and the Transit of Cattle....................................................................................35  
14. WT/DS131 – France – Certain Income Ta x Measures Constituting Subsidies ................35  
15. WT/DS130 – Ireland – Certain Income Ta x Measures Constituting Subsidies ................35  
16. WT/DS129 – Greece – Certain Income Ta x Measures Constituting Subsidies ................35  
17. WT/DS128 – Netherlands – Certain Income Tax Measures Constituting Subsidies ........35  
18. WT/DS127 – Belgium – Certain Income Ta x Measures Constitu ting Subsidies...............36  
19. WT/DS123 – Argentina – Safeguard Meas ures on Imports of Footwear .........................36  
20. WT/DS120 – India – Measures Affecting Export of Certain Commodities ......................36  
21. WT/DS118 – United States – Harbour Maintenance Tax.................................................36  
22. WT/DS117 – Canada – Measures Affecting Film Distribution Services ..........................36  WT/DS/OV/23 
Page viii  
 
 23.
 WT/DS116 – Brazil – Measures Affecting Payment Terms for Imports ...........................36  
I. YEAR  1997........................................................................................................................... ....37  
1. WT/DS112 – Peru – Countervailing Duty Investigation against Imports of Buses 
from Brazil .................................................................................................................... ....37  
2. WT/DS111 – United States – Tariff Rate Quota for Imports of Groundnuts....................37  
3. WT/DS109 – Chile – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages ........................................................37  
4. WT/DS107 – Pakistan – Export Measures  Affecting Hides and Skins..............................37  
5. WT/DS105 – European Communities – Regi me for the Importation, Sale and 
Distribution of Bananas....................................................................................................37  
6. WT/DS104 – European Communities – Measur es Affecting the Exportation of 
Processed Cheese..............................................................................................................3 7 
7. WT/DS100 – United States – Measures Affec ting Imports of Poultry Products...............38  
8. WT/DS97 – United States – Countervailing Duty Investigation of Imports of 
Salmon from Chile ............................................................................................................38  
9. WT/DS81 – Brazil – Measures Affecting Trade and Investment in the Automotive 
Sector ......................................................................................................................... .......38  
10. WT/DS80 – Belgium – Measures Affecting Commercial Telephone Directory 
Services ....................................................................................................................... ......38  
11. WT/DS78 – United States – Safeguard Measu re Against Imports of Broom Corn 
Brooms......................................................................................................................... .....39  
12. WT/DS71 – Canada – Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft ......................39  
13. WT/DS66 – Japan – Measures Aff ecting Imports of Pork ................................................39  
14. WT/DS65 – Brazil – Certain Measures Affecting Trade and Investment in the 
Automotive Sector .............................................................................................................3 9 
J. YEAR  1996........................................................................................................................... ....39  
1. WT/DS63 – United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Imports of Solid Urea 
from the Former German Democratic Republic...............................................................39  
2. WT/DS61 – United States – Import Proh ibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp 
Products....................................................................................................................... .....39  
3. WT/DS53 – Mexico – Customs Valuation of Imports .......................................................40  
4. WT/DS52 – Brazil – Certain Measures Affecting Trade and Investment in the 
Automotive Sector .............................................................................................................4 0 
5. WT/DS51 – Brazil – Certain Automotive Investment Measures .......................................40  
6. WT/DS47 – Turkey – Restrictions on Imports  of Textile and Clothing Products .............40  
7. WT/DS45 – Japan – Measures Affecting Distribution Services........................................40  
8. WT/DS41 – Korea – Measures Concerning Inspection of Agricultural Products............40  
9. WT/DS30 – Brazil – Countervailing Duties on Imports of Desiccated Coconut and 
Coconut Milk Powder from Sri Lanka ..............................................................................41  
10. WT/DS29 – Turkey – Restrictions on Imports  of Textile and Clothing Products .............41  
K. YEAR  1995........................................................................................................................... ....41  
1. WT/DS16 – European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and 
Distribution of Bananas....................................................................................................41  
2. WT/DS3 – Korea – Measures Concerning the Testing and Inspection of 
Agricultural Products .......................................................................................................41  
II. PANELS ESTABLISHED BY DSB/REPORTS NOT YET CIRCULATED 
(IN DESCENDING ORDER,  BY DS NUMBER)................................................................42  
A. ORIGINAL  PANELS ...............................................................................................................42  
1. WT/DS323 – Japan – Import Quotas on Dried Laver and Seasoned Laver.....................42  
2. WT/DS322 – United States – Measures Relating to Zeroing and Sunset Reviews ...........42   WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page ix 
 
 
 3. WT/DS321 – Canada – Continued Suspensi on of Obligations in the EC – 
Hormones Dispute ............................................................................................................43  
4. WT/DS320 – United States – Continued Suspe nsion of Obligations in the EC – 
Hormones Disputes...........................................................................................................44  
5. WT/DS315 – European Communities – Selected Customs Matters..................................44  
6. WT/DS312 – Korea – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Certain Paper from 
Indonesia...................................................................................................................... .....45  
7. WT/DS308 – Mexico – Tax Measures on Soft Drinks and Other Beverages....................46  
8. WT/DS301 – European Communities – Measures  Affecting Commercial Vessels...........46  
9. WT/DS299 – European Communities – C ountervailing Measures on Dynamic 
Random Access Memory Ch ips from Korea .....................................................................47  
10. WT/DS295 – Mexico – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Beef and Rice .................48  
11. WT/DS294 – United States – Laws, Regulatio ns and Methodology for Calculating 
Dumping Margins ("Zeroing") .........................................................................................49  
12. WT/DS293, WT/DS292, WT/DS291 – Measures  Affecting the Approval and 
Marketing of Biotech Products .........................................................................................50  
13. WT/DS287 – Australia – Quarantine Regime for Imports................................................52  
14. WT/DS286 and WT/DS269 – Euro pean Communities – Customs Classification of 
Frozen Boneless Chicken Cuts..........................................................................................52  
15. WT/DS282 – United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods (OCTG) from Mexico ............................................................................................53
 
16. WT/DS281 – United States – Anti-Dumping Me asures on Imports of Cement from 
Mexico......................................................................................................................... ......54  
17. WT/DS280 – United States – Countervailing Duties on Imports of Steel Plate from 
Mexico......................................................................................................................... ......55  
18. WT/DS270 – Australia – Certain Measures Affecting the Importation of Fresh 
Fruit and Vegetables.........................................................................................................55  
19. WT/DS260 – European Communities – Pr ovisional Safeguard Measures on 
Imports of Certain Steel Products.....................................................................................56  
20. WT/DS214 – United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Steel Wire Rod and Circular Welded Carbon Quality Line Pipe ..............................................56
 
21. WT/DS195 – Philippines – Measures Affecting Trade and Investment in the Motor 
Vehicle Sector ................................................................................................................. ..57 
22. WT/DS188 – Nicaragua – Measures Aff ecting Imports from Honduras and 
Colombia (I)................................................................................................................... ...57 
23. WT/DS164 – Argentina – Measures A ffecting Imports of Footwear ................................58  
B. ACTIVE COMPLIANCE PANELS ..................................................................................................58  
1. WT/DS277 – United States – Investigation of the International Trade Commission 
in Softwood Lumber Canada ............................................................................................58  
2. WT/DS257 – United States – Final Countervailing Duty Determination with respect to Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada ..........................................................58
 
3. WT/DS245 – Japan – Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples ..............................59  
4. WT/DS212 – United States – Countervailing Measures concerning Certain 
Products from the European Communities.......................................................................59  
5. WT/DS108 – United States – Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations" .............60  
III. REPORTS CIRCULATED BUT NOT YET ADOPTED BY THE DSB...........................60  
A. ORIGINAL  PANEL  REPORTS ...............................................................................................60  
1. WT/DS290, WT/DS174 – European Commun ities – Protection of Trademarks and 
Geographical Indications for Agricu ltural Products and Foodstuffs...............................60  
2. WT/DS273 – Korea – Measures Affecting Trade in Commercial Vessels ........................63  
B. COMPLIANCE  PANEL  REPORTS  (ARTICLE  21.5) ............................................................64  WT/DS/OV/23 
Page x  
 
 C.
 APPELLATE  BODY  REPORTS..............................................................................................64  
D. APPELLATE  BODY  COMPLIANCE  REPORTS  (ARTICLE  21.5).......................................64  
IV. REPORTS CURRENTLY UNDER APPEAL (IN DESCENDING ORDER, BY 
DS NUMBER) ..................................................................................................................... ....64  
A. ORIGINAL  PANEL  REPORTS ...............................................................................................64  
1. WT/DS302 – Dominican Republic – Measures Affecting the Importation and 
Internal Sale of Cigarettes................................................................................................64  
2. WT/DS296 – United States – Countervailing Duty Investigation on Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors (DRAMs) from Korea.....................................66
 
3. WT/DS285 – United States – Measures Affecting Cross-Border Supply of 
Gambling and Betting Services.........................................................................................68  
4. WT/DS283, WT/DS266, WT/DS265 – Europe an Communities – Export Subsidies 
on Sugar....................................................................................................................... .....69  
B. COMPLIANCE  PANEL  REPORTS  (ARTICLE  21.5) ............................................................72  
V. COMPLETED PANEL AND APPELLATE BODY REVIEW (IN ASCENDING 
ORDER, BY DS NUMBER) ..................................................................................................72  
A. APPELLATE  BODY  AND  PANEL  REPORTS  ADOPTED ...................................................72  
1. WT/DS2 and WT/DS4 – United States – Standards for Reformulated and 
Conventional Gasoline......................................................................................................72  
2. WT/DS8, WT/DS10 and WT/DS11 – Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages ..................73  
3. WT/DS18 – Australia – Measures Affecting the Importation of Salmon ..........................73  
4. WT/DS22 – Brazil – Measures Affecting Desiccated Coconut .........................................74  
5. WT/DS24 – United States – Restrictions on Imports of Cotton and Man-Made 
Fibre Underwear ..............................................................................................................74  
6. WT/DS26 – European Communities – Measures Affecting Meat and Meat Products (Hormones)........................................................................................................74
 
7. WT/DS27 – European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas....................................................................................................75
 
8. WT/DS31 – Canada – Certain Measures Concerning Periodicals ..................................76  
9. WT/DS33 – United States – Measure Affecting Imports of Woven Wool Shirts and Blouses........................................................................................................................ ......76
 
10. WT/DS34 – Turkey – Restrictions on Imports  of Textile and Clothing Products .............77  
11. WT/DS44 – Japan – Measures Affecting C onsumer Photographic Film and Paper........77  
12. WT/DS46 – Brazil – Export Financin g Programme for Aircraft......................................78  
13. WT/DS48 – European Communities – Measures Affecting Livestock and Meat 
(Hormones) ..................................................................................................................... ..78 
14. WT/DS50 – India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural 
Chemical Products............................................................................................................79  
15. WT/DS54, WT/DS55, WT/DS59 and WT/DS64 – Indonesia – Certain Measures 
Affecting the Automobile Industry ....................................................................................79  
16. WT/DS56 – Argentina – Certain Measu res Affecting Imports of Footwear, 
Textiles, Apparel and Other Items ....................................................................................80  
17. WT/DS58 – United States – Import Proh ibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp 
Products....................................................................................................................... .....81  
18. WT/DS60 – Guatemala – Anti-Dumping In vestigation Regarding Imports of 
Portland Cement from Mexico..........................................................................................82  
19. WT/DS62, WT/DS67 and WT/DS68 – European Communities – Customs Classification of Certain Computer Equipment................................................................82
  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page xi 
 
 
 20. WT/DS69 – European Communities – Measures Affecting Importation of Certain 
Poultry Products ............................................................................................................... 83 
21. WT/DS70 – Canada – Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft ......................83  
22. WT/DS75 and WT/DS84 – Korea – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages .................................84  
23. WT/DS76 – Japan – Measures Aff ecting Agricultural Products ......................................84  
24. WT/DS79 – India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural 
Chemical Products............................................................................................................85  
25. WT/DS87 and WT/DS110 – Chile – Tax es on Alcoholic Beverages.................................85  
26. WT/DS90 – India – Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of Agricultural, Textile 
and Industrial Products ....................................................................................................86  
27. WT/DS98 – Korea – Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Certain Dairy Products....................................................................................................................... .....86
 
28. WT/DS99 – United States – Anti-Dumpi ng Duty on Dynamic Random Access 
Memory Semiconductors (DRAMS) of On e Megabit or Above from Korea.....................87  
29. WT/DS103 and WT/DS113 – Canada – Meas ures Affecting the Importation of 
Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products ....................................................................87  
30. WT/DS108 – United States – Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations" .............88  
31. WT/DS114 – Canada – Patent Protecti on of Pharmaceutical Products ..........................89  
32. WT/DS121 – Argentina – Safeguard Meas ures on Imports of Footwear .........................90  
33. WT/DS122 – Thailand – Anti-Dumping Duties on Angles, Shapes and Sections of 
Iron or Non-Alloy Steel and H-Beams from Poland .........................................................91  
34. WT/DS126 – Australia – Subsidies Prov ided to Producers and Exporters of 
Automotive Leather...........................................................................................................92  
35. WT/DS132 – Mexico – Anti-Dumping Investi gation of High-Fructose Corn Syrup 
(HFCS) from the United States .........................................................................................92  
36. WT/DS135 – European Communities – Measur es Affecting the Prohibition of 
Asbestos and Asbestos Products .......................................................................................93  
37. WT/DS136 – United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 .................................................94  
38. WT/DS138 – United States – Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Certain Hot-
Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Pr oducts Originating in the United 
Kingdom........................................................................................................................ ....95  
39. WT/DS139 and WT/DS142 – Canada – Certain Measures Affecting the 
Automotive Industry..........................................................................................................96  
40. WT/DS141 – European Communities – An ti-Dumping Duties on Imports of 
Cotton-Type Bed-Linen from India...................................................................................97  
41. WT/DS146 and WT/DS175 – India – Measures Affecting the Automotive Sector............98  
42. WT/DS152 – United States – Sections 301 -310 of the Trade Act of 1974 ......................100  
43. WT/DS155 – Argentina – Measures on the Ex port of Bovine Hides and the Import 
of Finished Leather.........................................................................................................101  
44. WT/DS156 – Guatemala – Definitive An ti-dumping Measure regarding Grey 
Portland Cement from Mexico........................................................................................102  
45. WT/DS160 – United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act...........................103  
46. WT/DS161 and WT/DS169 – Korea – Measur es Affecting Imports of Fresh, 
Chilled, and Frozen Beef ................................................................................................104  
47. WT/DS162 – United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 ...............................................106  
48. WT/DS163 – Korea  – Measures Affecting Go vernment Procurement............................107  
49. WT/DS165 – United States – Import Meas ures on Certain Products from the 
European Communities...................................................................................................107  
50. WT/DS166 – United States – Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Wheat Gluten from the European Communities ........................................................................109
 
51. WT/DS170 – Canada – Patent Protection Term.............................................................111  
52. WT/DS176 – United States – Section 21 1 Omnibus Appropriations Act........................112  WT/DS/OV/23 
Page xii  
 
 53.
 WT/DS177 and WT/DS178 – United States – Safeguard Measure on Imports of 
Fresh, Chilled or Frozen Lamb from New Zealand........................................................113  
54. WT/DS179 – United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Stainless Steel Plate in Coils and Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from Korea ....................................................114
 
55. WT/DS184 – United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel 
Products from Japan.......................................................................................................116  
56. WT/DS189 – Argentina – Definitive Anti- Dumping Measures on Imports of 
Ceramic Floor Tiles from Italy.......................................................................................117  
57. WT/DS192 – United States – Transitional Safeguard Measure on Combed Cotton Yarn from Pakistan .........................................................................................................118
 
58. WT/DS194 – United States – Measures Treating Export Restraints As Subsidies .........119  
59. WT/DS202 – United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Circular Welded Carbon Quality Line Pipe ...................................................................120
 
60. WT/DS204 – Mexico – Measures Affecting Telecommunications Services ....................122  
61. WT/DS206 – United States – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Measures on Steel 
Plate From India.............................................................................................................12 4 
62. WT/DS207 – Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard Measures relating to 
Certain Agricultural Products ........................................................................................125  
63. WT/DS211– Egypt – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Steel Rebar from Turkey ......................................................................................................................... ....127
 
64. WT/DS212 – United States – Countervailing Measures concerning Certain 
Products from the European Communities.....................................................................130  
65. WT/DS213 – United States – Countervailing Duties on Certain Corrosion-
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat  Products from Germany ....................................................131  
66. WT/DS217, WT/DS234 – United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset 
Act of 2000.................................................................................................................... ..133  
67. WT/DS219 – European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Malleable Cast 
Iron Tube or Pipe F ittings from Brazil ...........................................................................134  
68. WT/DS221 – United States – Section 129(c )(1) of the Uruguay Round Agreements 
Act ............................................................................................................................ .......136  
69. WT/DS222 – Canada – Export Credits and L oan Guarantees for Regional Aircraft ....136  
70. WT/DS231 – European Communities – Trade  Description of Sardines.........................137  
71. WT/DS236 – United States – Preliminary Determinations with respect to Certain 
Softwood Lumber from Canada......................................................................................139  
72. WT/DS238 – Argentina – Definitive Safeguar d Measure on Imports of Preserved 
Peaches ........................................................................................................................ ...141  
73. WT/DS241 – Argentina – Definitive Anti-Dump ing Duties on Poultry from Brazil.......142  
74. WT/DS243 – United States – Rules of Origin for Textiles and Apparel Products..........142  
75. WT/DS244 – United States – Sunset Review of Anti-Dumping Duties on 
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan........................................143  
76. WT/DS245 – Japan – Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples ............................145  
77. WT/DS246 – European Communities – Cond itions for the Granting of Tariff 
Preferences to Developing Countries .............................................................................146  
78. WT/DS248, WT/DS249, WT/DS251, WT/DS252, WT/DS253, WT/DS254, WT/DS258 and WT/DS259 – United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on 
Imports of Certain Steel Products...................................................................................147
 
79. WT/DS257 – United States – Final Countervailing Duty Determination with respect to Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada ........................................................151
 
80. WT/DS264 – United States – Final Dumping Determination on Softwood Lumber from Canada ...................................................................................................................1 52
 
81. WT/DS267 – United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton.............................................154  
82. WT/DS268 – United States – Sunset Reviews of Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil 
Country Tubular Goods from Argentina.........................................................................157   WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page xiii 
 
 
 83. WT/DS276 – Canada – Measures Relating to Exports of Wheat and Treatment of 
Imported Grain ...............................................................................................................15 9 
84. WT/DS277 – United States – Investigation of the International Trade Commission 
in Softwood Lumber from Canada..................................................................................161  
B. APPELLATE  BODY  AND  PANEL  COMPLIANCE  REPORTS  (ARTICLE  21.5)  
ADOPTED........................................................................................................................ ......161  
1. WT/DS18/RW – Australia – Measures Aff ecting the Importation of Salmon .................161  
2. WT/DS27/RW – European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and 
Distribution of Bananas..................................................................................................162  
3. WT/DS46/RW and WT/DS46/RW/2 – Brazil – Export Financing Programme for 
Aircraft....................................................................................................................... .....163  
4. WT/DS58/RW – United States – Import Prohi bition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp 
Products....................................................................................................................... ...163  
5. WT/DS70/RW – Canada – Measures Affecti ng the Export of Civilian Aircraft .............164  
6. WT/DS99/RW – United States – Anti-Dumping Duty on Dynamic Random Access 
Memory Semiconductors (DRAMS) of On e Megabit or Above from Korea...................165  
7. WT/DS103/RW and WT/DS113/RW – Canad a – Measures Affecting the 
Importation of Milk and the Ex portation of Dairy Products ..........................................165  
8. WT/DS103/RW/2 and WT/DS113/RW/2 – C anada – Measures Affecting the 
Importation of Milk and the Ex portation of Dairy Products ..........................................166  
9. WT/DS108/RW – United States – Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations".....167  
10. WT/DS126/RW – Australia – Subsidies Provided to Producers and Exporters of 
Automotive Leather.........................................................................................................168  
11. WT/DS132/RW – Mexico – Anti-Dumping Investigation of High-Fructose Corn 
Syrup (HFCS) from the United States.............................................................................168  
12. WT/DS141/RW – European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of 
Cotton-Type Bed Linen from India .................................................................................169  
VI. IMPLEMENTATION STATUS OF ADOPTED REPORTS (IN ASCENDING 
ORDER, BY DS NUMBER) ................................................................................................170  
1. WT/DS2 and WT/DS4 – United States – Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline....................................................................................................170
 
2. WT/DS8, WT/DS10 and WT/DS11 – Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages ................170  
3. WT/DS18 – Australia – Measures Affecting the Importation of Salmon ........................171  
4. WT/DS24 – United States – Restrictions on Imports of Cotton and Man-Made 
Fibre Underwear ............................................................................................................171  
5. WT/DS26 and WT/DS48 – European Communiti es – Measures Affecting Meat and 
Meat Products (Hormones).............................................................................................171  
6. WT/DS27 – European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas..................................................................................................173
 
7. WT/DS31 – Canada – Certain Measures Concerning Periodicals ................................177  
8. WT/DS33 – United States – Measure Affecting Imports of Woven Wool Shirts and Blouses........................................................................................................................ ....177
 
9. WT/DS34 – Turkey – Restrictions on Imports  of Textile and Clothing Products ...........177  
10. WT/DS46 – Brazil – Export Financin g Programme for Aircraft....................................178  
11. WT/DS50 – India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural 
Chemical Products..........................................................................................................179  
12. WT/DS54, WT/DS55, WT/DS59 and WT/DS64 – Indonesia – Certain Measures Affecting the Automobile Industry ..................................................................................179
 
13. WT/DS56 – Argentina – Certain Measu res Affecting Imports of Footwear, 
Textiles, Apparel and Other Items ..................................................................................179  
14. WT/DS58 – United States – Import Proh ibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp 
Products....................................................................................................................... ...180  WT/DS/OV/23 
Page xiv  
 
 15.
 WT/DS69 – European Communities – Measures Affecting Importation of Certain 
Poultry Products .............................................................................................................18 0 
16. WT/DS70 – Canada – Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft ....................180  
17. WT/DS75 and WT/DS84 – Korea – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages ...............................181  
18. WT/DS76 – Japan – Measures Aff ecting Agricultural Products ....................................181  
19. WT/DS79 – India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural 
Chemical Products..........................................................................................................182  
20. WT/DS87 and WT/DS110– Chile – Tax es on Alcoholic Beverages................................182  
21. WT/DS90 – India – Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of Agricultural, Textile 
and Industrial Products ..................................................................................................182  
22. WT/DS98 – Korea – Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Certain Dairy Products....................................................................................................................... ...183
 
23. WT/DS99 – United States – Anti-Dumpi ng Duty on Dynamic Random Access 
Memory Semiconductors (DRAMS) of On e Megabit or Above from Korea...................183  
24. WT/DS103 and WT/DS113 – Canada – Meas ures Affecting the Importation of 
Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products ..................................................................184  
25. WT/DS108 – United States – Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations" ...........185  
26. WT/DS114 – Canada – Patent Protecti on of Pharmaceutical Products ........................186  
27. WT/DS121 – Argentina – Safeguard Meas ures on Imports of Footwear .......................187  
28. WT/DS122 – Thailand – Anti-Dumping Duties on Angles, Shapes and Sections of 
Iron or Non-Alloy Steel and H-Beams from Poland .......................................................187  
29. WT/DS126 – Australia – Subsidies Prov ided to Producers and Exporters of 
Automotive Leather.........................................................................................................187  
30. WT/DS132 – Mexico – Anti-Dumping Investi gation of High-Fructose Corn Syrup 
(HFCS) from the United States .......................................................................................188  
31. WT/DS136 and WT/DS162 – United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916......................188  
32. WT/DS138 – United States – Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Certain Hot-
Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Pr oducts Originating in the United 
Kingdom........................................................................................................................ ..191  
33. WT/DS139 and WT/DS142 – Canada – Certain Measures Affecting the 
Automotive Industry........................................................................................................191  
34. WT/DS141 – European Communities – An ti-Dumping Duties on Imports of 
Cotton-Type Bed-Linen from India.................................................................................191  
35. WT/DS146 and WT/DS175 – India – Measures Affecting the Automotive Sector..........192  
36. WT/DS155 – Argentina – Measures on the Ex port of Bovine Hides and the Import 
of Finished Leather.........................................................................................................192  
37. WT/DS156 – Guatemala – Definitive An ti-dumping Measure regarding Grey 
Portland Cement from Mexico........................................................................................192  
38. WT/DS160 – United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act...........................193  
39. WT/DS161 and WT/DS169 Korea – Measures A ffecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled, 
and Frozen Beef ..............................................................................................................19 4 
40. WT/DS166 – United States – Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Wheat 
Gluten from the European Communities ........................................................................195  
41. WT/DS170 – Canada – Patent Protection Term.............................................................195  
42. WT/DS176 – United States – Section 21 1 Omnibus Appropriations Act........................195  
43. WT/DS177 and WT/DS178 – United States – Safeguard Measure on Imports of 
Fresh, Chilled or Frozen Lamb from New Zealand and Australia.................................197  
44. WT/DS179 – United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Stainless Steel Plate in 
Coils and Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from Korea ....................................................197  
45. WT/DS184 – United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel 
Products from Japan.......................................................................................................197  
46. WT/DS189 – Argentina – Definitive Anti- Dumping Measures on Imports of 
Ceramic Floor Tiles from Italy.......................................................................................200   WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page xv 
 
 
 47. WT/DS192 – United States – Transitional Safeguard Measure on Combed Cotton 
Yarn from Pakistan .........................................................................................................200  
48. WT/DS202 – United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Circular Welded Carbon Quality Line Pipe ...................................................................200
 
49. WT/DS204 – Mexico – Measures Affecting Telecommunications Services ....................200  
50. WT/DS206 – United States – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Measures on Steel Plate From India.............................................................................................................20 1
 
51. WT/DS207 – Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard Measures relating to 
Certain Agricultural Products ........................................................................................201  
52. WT/DS211 – Egypt – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Steel Rebar from 
Turkey ......................................................................................................................... ....202  
53. WT/DS212 – United States – Countervailing Measures concerning Certain 
Products from the European Communities.....................................................................202  
54. WT/DS213 – United States – Countervailing Duties on Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat  Products from Germany ....................................................203
 
55. WT/DS217, WT/DS234 – United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset 
Act of 2000.................................................................................................................... ..203  
56. WT/DS219 – European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Malleable Cast 
Iron Tube or Pipe F ittings from Brazil ...........................................................................205  
57. WT/DS222 – Canada – Export Credits and L oan Guarantees for Regional Aircraft ....205  
58. WT/DS231 – European Communities – Trade  Description of Sardines.........................206  
59. WT/DS236 – United States – Preliminary Determinations with respect to Certain 
Softwood Lumber from Canada......................................................................................206  
60. WT/DS238 – Argentina – Definitive Safeguar d Measure on Imports of Preserved 
Peaches ........................................................................................................................ ...207  
61. WT/DS245 – Japan – Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples ............................207  
62. WT/DS246 – European Communities – Cond itions for the Granting of Tariff 
Preferences to Developing Countries .............................................................................208  
63. WT/DS248, WT/DS249, WT/DS251, WT/DS252, WT/DS253, WT/DS254, WT/DS258 and WT/DS259 – United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on 
Imports of Certain Steel Products...................................................................................208
 
64. WT/DS257 – United States – Final Countervailing Duty Determination with 
respect to Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada ........................................................208  
65. WT/DS264 – United States – Final Dumping Determination on Softwood Lumber 
from Canada ...................................................................................................................2 09 
66. WT/DS268 – United States – Sunset Reviews of Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil 
Country Tubular Goods for Argentina ...........................................................................209  
67. WT/DS276 – Canada – Measures Relating to Exports of Wheat and Treatment of Imported Grain ...............................................................................................................21 0
 
68. WT/DS277 – United States – Investigation of the International Trade Commission 
in Softwood Lumber Canada ..........................................................................................210  
VII. SETTLED OR INACTIVE CASES ....................................................................................211  
A. MUTUALLY  AGREED  SOLUTIONS  NOTIFIED  UNDER  ARTICLE  3.6 OF THE  
DSU ............................................................................................................................ ............211  
1. WT/DS5 – Korea – Measures Concerning the Shelf-life of Products.............................211  
2. WT/DS6 – United States – Imposition of Import Duties on Automobiles from 
Japan under Sections 301 and 304 of  the Trade Act of 1974 .........................................211  
3. WT/DS7, WT/DS12 and WT/DS14 – Europe an Communities – Trade Description 
of Scallops.................................................................................................................... ...211  
4. WT/DS19 – Poland – Import Re gime for Automobiles ...................................................211  
5. WT/DS20 – Korea – Measures Concerning Bottled Water ............................................211  
6. WT/DS21 – Australia – Measures Affecting the Importation of Salmonids....................212  WT/DS/OV/23 
Page xvi  
 
 7.
 WT/DS28 – Japan – Measures Con cerning Sound Recordings......................................212  
8. WT/DS35 – Hungary – Export Subsidies in Respect of Agricultural Products ..............212  
9. WT/DS36 – Pakistan – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural 
Chemical Products..........................................................................................................212  
10. WT/DS37 – Portugal – Patent Protection  under the Industrial Property Act ...............213  
11. WT/DS40 – Korea – Laws, Regulations a nd Practices in the Telecommunications 
Sector ......................................................................................................................... .....213  
12. WT/DS42 – Japan – Measures Con cerning Sound Recordings......................................213  
13. WT/DS43 – Turkey – Taxation of Foreign Film Revenues .............................................213  
14. WT/DS72 – European Communities – Measures Affecting Butter Products..................213  
15. WT/DS73 – Japan – Procurement of a Navigation Satellite...........................................214  
16. WT/DS74 – Philippines – Measures Affecting Pork and Poultry ...................................214  
17. WT/DS82 – Ireland – Measures Affecting the Grant of Copyright and 
Neighbouring Rights .......................................................................................................214  
18. WT/DS83 – Denmark – Measures Affecting the Enforcement of Intellectual 
Property Rights ...............................................................................................................2 14 
19. WT/DS85 – United States – Measures Aff ecting Textiles and Apparel Products ...........214  
20. WT/DS86 – Sweden – Measures Affecting th e Enforcement of Intellectual Property 
Rights ......................................................................................................................... .....215  
21. WT/DS91 – India – Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of Agricultural, Textile 
and Industrial Products ..................................................................................................215  
22. WT/DS92 – India – Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and Industrial Products ..................................................................................................215
 
23. WT/DS93 – India – Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and Industrial Products ..................................................................................................215
 
24. WT/DS94 – India – Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of Agricultural, Textile 
and Industrial Products ..................................................................................................215  
25. WT/DS96 – India – Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of Agricultural, Textile 
and Industrial Products ..................................................................................................216  
26. WT/DS99 – United States – Anti-Dumpi ng Duty on Dynamic Random Access 
Memory Semiconductors (DRAMS) of On e Megabit or Above from Korea...................216  
27. WT/DS102 – Philippines – Measures Affecting Pork and Poultry .................................216  
28. WT/DS103 and WT/DS113 – Canada – Meas ures Affecting the Importation of 
Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products ..................................................................216  
29. WT/DS115 – European Communities – Measures  Affecting the Grant of Copyright 
and Neighbouring Rights ................................................................................................217  
30. WT/DS119 – Australia – Anti-Dumping Meas ures on Imports of Coated Woodfree 
Paper Sheets ................................................................................................................... 217 
31. WT/DS124 – European Communities – Enforcement of Intellectual Property 
Rights for Motion Pictures and Television Programs ....................................................217  
32. WT/DS125 – Greece – Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights for Motion Pictures and Television Programs..................................................................................217
 
33. WT/DS151 – United States – Measures Aff ecting Textiles and Apparel Products .........217  
34. WT/DS171 – Argentina – Patent Protection for Pharmaceuticals and Test Data 
Protection for Agricultural Chemicals ...........................................................................218  
35. WT/DS190 – Argentina – Transitional Safe guard Measures on Certain Imports of 
Woven Fabrics of Cotton and Cotton Mixtures Originating in Brazil............................218  
36. WT/DS196 – Argentina – Certain Measures on the Protection of Patents and Test 
Data ........................................................................................................................... .....219  
37. WT/DS198 – Romania – Measures on Minimum Import Prices.....................................219  
38. WT/DS199 – Braz il – Measures Affecting Patent Protection .........................................220  
39. WT/DS210 – Belgium – Administration of Measures Establishing Customs Duties 
for Rice....................................................................................................................... .....220   WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page xvii 
 
 
 40. WT/DS231 – European Communities – Trade  Description of Sardines.........................221  
41. WT/DS235 – Slovakia – Safeguard Me asure on Imports of Sugar.................................221  
42. WT/DS237 – Turkey – Certain Import Procedures for Fresh Fruit ...............................222  
43. WT/DS250 – United States – Equalizing Excise Tax Imposed by Florida on 
Processed Orange and Grapefruit Products ..................................................................223  
44. WT/DS261 – Uruguay – Tax Treatment on Certain Products........................................223  
45. WT/DS313 – European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Certain Flat Rolled Iron or Non-Alloy Steel  Products From India.....................................................224
 
B. OTHERS......................................................................................................................... ........225  
1. WT/DS1 – Malaysia – Prohibition of Imports  of Polyethylene and Polypropylene .......225  
2. WT/DS9 – European Communities – Duties on Imports of Cereals...............................225  
3. WT/DS13 – European Communities – Duties on Imports of Grains ..............................225  
4. WT/DS15 – Japan – Measures Affecting the Purchase of Telecommunications 
Equipment ...................................................................................................................... .225 
5. WT/DS17 – European Communities – Duties on Imports of Rice ..................................225  
6. WT/DS23 – Venezuela – Anti-Dumping Investigation in Respect of Imports of 
Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods (OCTG).................................................................226  
7. WT/DS25 – European Communities – Impl ementation of the Uruguay Round 
Commitments Concerning Rice.......................................................................................226  
8. WT/DS32 – United States – Measures Affec ting Imports of Women's and Girls' 
Wool Coats..................................................................................................................... .226 
9. WT/DS38 – United States – The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act............226  
10. WT/DS39 – United States – Tariff Incr eases on Products from the European 
Communities ...................................................................................................................2 26 
11. WT/DS49 – United States – Anti-Dumping Investigation Regarding Imports of 
Fresh or Chilled Toma toes from Mexico ........................................................................227  
12. WT/DS57 – Australia – Textiles, Clothing  and Footwear Import Credit Scheme ..........227  
13. WT/DS77 – Argentina – Measures Affecting Textiles and Clothing...............................227  
14. WT/DS88 – United States – Measure Affecting Government Procurement....................227  
15. WT/DS89 – United States – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Colour Television 
Receivers from  Korea .....................................................................................................228  
16. WT/DS95 – United States – Measure Affecting Government Procurement....................228  
17. WT/DS101 – Mexico – Anti-Dumping Investi gation of High-Fructose Corn Syrup 
(HFCS) from the United States .......................................................................................228  
18. WT/DS106 – Australia – Subsidies Prov ided to Producers and Exporters of 
Automotive Leather.........................................................................................................228  
19. WT/DS181 – Colombia – Safe guard Measure on Imports of Plain Polyester 
Filaments from Thailand.................................................................................................229  
20. WT/DS193 – Chile – Measures Affecting the Tr ansit and Importation of Swordfish.....229  
21. WT/DS227 – Peru – Taxes on Cigarettes .......................................................................229  
22. WT/DS228 – Chile – Safeguar d Measures on Sugar......................................................230  
23. WT/DS232 – Mexico – Measures Affecting the Import of Matches................................230  
24. WT/DS240 – Romania – Import Prohibiti on on Wheat and Wheat Flour......................231  
25. WT/DS255 – Peru– Tax Treatment on Certain Imported Products................................231  
26. WT/DS284 – Mexico – Certain Measures Preventing the Importation of Black 
Beans from Nicaragua ....................................................................................................232  
27. WT/DS309 – China – Value-Added Tax on Integrated Circuits.....................................232   WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 1 
 
 
 I. CONSULTATIONS REQUESTED – NO PANEL ESTABLISHED NOR 
SETTLEMENT NOTIFIED (most recent listed first) 
A. YEAR  2005 
1. WT/DS329 – Panama – Tariff Classification of Certain Milk Products 
Complaint by Mexico. On 16 March 2005, Mexico has requested consultations with Panama 
regarding its Cabinet Decree N. 20 of 17 July 2002 which creates two new tariff subheadings 
in Panama's National Importation Nomenclatu re.  According to Mexico, this Decree 
eliminates the existing tariff subheading No. 1901.10.10 for processed milk to which a 5% 
bound tariff applied pursuant to Panama's WTO Bindings.  The Decree further created two 
new subheadings: No.1901.10.11 (baby formula) with a 0% tariff, and No.  1901.10.19 (all 
others) with a 65% tariff.  
Mexico considers that Panama's new tariff clas sification for those milk products may violate 
Articles I, II and XXVIII of GATT 1994 and Article 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
In addition, Mexico raises a non-violation claim:   Mexico claims that the application of the 
new tariff classification by Panama nullifies or impede, in the sense of Article XXIII.1(b) of 
the GATT 1994 , the tariff concessions that Panama granted to Mexico for processed milk (5 % 
consolidated tariff) as a result of its accession to the WTO. 
2. WT/DS328 – European Communities – Defe nitive Safeguard Measure on Salmon 
Complaint by Norway. On 1 March 2005, Norway requested consultations with the European 
Communities regarding the latter's definitive saf eguard measure against imports of farmed 
salmon imposed through Commission Regulation (EC) No. 206/2005, 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 a dditional 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 states in its request for consultations that the definitive safeguard measure concerned 
is inconsistent with the EC's obligations under the WTO, because inter alia : 
• There were no "unforeseen developments" that resulted in an increase in imports as 
required by GATT 1994; 
 
• There has not been an increase in impor ts recent 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 competent authorities failed adequately to 
evaluate all relevant factors of an object ive and quantifiable nature having a bearing 
on the situation of the domestic industry,  as required by Safeguards Agreement. WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 2  
 
 Furthermore, there was no “significant ove rall impairment” in the position of the 
domestic industry that justified the determin ation of serious injury as required by the 
Safeguards Agreement; 
  
• The determination fails to establish the necessary 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 domestic 
industry, and fails to ensure that injury cau sed by other factors has not been attributed 
to increased imports; 
 
• The competent authorities' determinati on in February 2005 was not based on 
sufficiently recent data and thus is inco nsistent with GATT 1994 and the Safeguards 
Agreement, given that the period of inves tigation was terminated in December 2003; 
 
• The competent authorities did not set forth adequately 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 interest ed parties with 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 necessary to prevent or remedy serious 
injury caused by increased imports and to facilitate adjustment;  
 
• The EC Regulation are inconsistent with th e Safeguards Agreement in so far as they 
impose a minimum price control mechanism which monitors import prices. 
 
• The EC Regulation are inconsistent with the Safeguard Agreement because they do 
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  considers the definitive safeguard measure 
concerned to be inconsistent w ith various WTO provisions including Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 
11 of the Safeguards Agreement and Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994. 
On 8 March 2005, Chile requested to join the c onsultations. On 17 March 2005, the European 
Communities accepted the request of Ch ile to join the consultations. 
3. WT/DS327 – Egypt – Anti-Dumping Duties on Matches from Pakistan 
Complaint by Pakistan. On 21 February 2005, Pakistan requested consultations with Egypt 
regarding definitive anti-dumping duties imposed by Egypt on matchboxes from Pakistan pursuant to Decree No. 667/2003 of 18 November 2003, as well as any amendments or 
extensions thereof.  According to Pakistan, these measures appear to be inconsistent with 
Egypt's obligations under the GATT 1994  and the Anti-Dumping Agreement .   
In particular, Pakistan considers that the imposition of these anti-dumping duties and the 
investigation leading thereto violate the following provisions:  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 3 
 
 
 • Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of GATT 1994 ; 
• Articles 1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.2.1.1, 2.2.2, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 6.1.3, 6.2, 6.4, 6.5, 6.5.1, 
6.5.2, 6.6, 6.8 read with Annex II, 6.9, 6.13, 12.2, 12.2.2 and 18 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement . 
4. WT/DS326 – European Communities – Defe nitive Safeguard Measure on Salmon 
Complaint by Chile. On 8 February 2005, Chile  requested consultations with the European 
Communities regarding the latter's definitive saf eguard measure against imports of farmed 
salmon imposed through Commission Regulation (EC) No. 206/2005, published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 5 Fe bruary 2005.  The measure will be in force 
from 6 February 2005 to 13 August 2008.  The measure consists of: 
• A system of tariff quotas calculated on the basis of past imports of salmon into the 
Communities.  Imports of farmed salmon be yond the level of the tariff quota shall be 
subject to an additional duty according to the group to which they belong; 
• A minimum price applicable to imports both within and beyond the tariff quota; and, 
• A security which must be provided by importers as a guarantee of the payment of the 
actual import price. 
 On 10 January 2005, the European Communities notified the WTO of its findings of serious 
injury and of its proposed safeguard me asure, concerning farmed salmon (Docs. 
G/SG/N/8/EEC/3, G/SG/N/10/EEC/3 and G/SG/N/11/EEC/3/Suppl.1). 
According to the information provided in the request for consultations, Chile requested prior 
consultations with the European Communities (EC) pursuant to Article 12.3 of the Agreement on Safeguards.  The prior consultations took place in Brussels on 20 January 2005. 
Chile states in its request for consultations that the definitive safeguard measure against 
imports of farmed salmon is inconsistent with the EC's  obligations under the WTO 
agreements and seriously affects Chilean exports of salmon to the EC, because in its opinion: 
– The product subject to the measures and its lik e or directly competitive products were 
not properly defined, since "chilled farmed salmon" is a different product from the "fresh 
salmon" produced by the European industry. 
– There were no "unforeseen developments" as a result of which there was an increase 
in imports, as required by Article XIX of GATT 1994. 
– There has not been an increase in impor ts recent 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 Article  XIX of GATT 1994 and by Article 2.1 of 
the Agreement on Safeguards.  Neither has there been an increase in imports relative 
to domestic production. 
– There is no serious injury nor threat of injury to the domestic industry and the 
determination of injury made by the inv estigating authority was based on allegations 
from the domestic industry, and on conjectur es and remote possibilities, all of which 
is inconsistent with Article 4.2( a) of the Agreement on Safeguards. WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 4  
 
 – Since there is no injury nor threat of injury  attributable to an increase in imports, the 
safeguard measure would be incompatible with Article 4.2(b) of the Agreement on 
Safeguards. 
– Finally, the safeguard measure imposed on imports of salmon goes beyond the extent 
necessary to prevent or remedy the serious injury and to facilitate adjustment, as 
required by Article 5 of th e Agreement on Safeguards.  
 On 18 February 2005, Norway requested to join the consultations. On 15 March 2005, the 
European Communities accepted the request of  Norway to join the consultations.  
 
5. WT/DS325 – United States – Anti-Dumping Determinations Regarding Stainless Steel 
from Mexico  
Complaint by Mexico. On 5 January 2005, Mexi co requested consultations with the United 
States concerning (i) certain final anti-dumping determinations made by the United States 
Department of Commerce ("USDOC") in respect of stainless steel sheet and strip coils from 
Mexico and (ii) certain generally applicable  United States anti-dumping laws, 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 ne gative dumping margins.  In Mexico's view, 
this may have resulted in the DOC making inco rrect determinations of dumping margins and 
unfair comparisons. In respect of (ii), the generally applicable US anti-dumping laws, 
regulations and administrative practices which ar e 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 C ode of Federal Regulati ons, sections 351.212(b), 
351.414 c), d) and e). Mexico considers that both (i) and (ii) may be inconsistent with the US' 
obligations under: 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 Communites requested to join the consultations. 
 
B. YEAR
 2004 
1. WT/DS324 – United States – Provisional Anti-Dumping Measures on Shrimp from 
Thailand  
Complaint by Thailand.  On 9 December 2004 , Thailand requested consultations with the 
United States concerning provisional anti-dumping measures imposed by the US on certain 
frozen and canned warmwater shrimp from Thailand. 
 According to the request for consultations from Thailand, the US preliminary determination at 
issue and the consequent imposition of provi sional anti-dumping measures on imports of the 
foregoing products are inconsistent with the WT O obligations of the United States in respect 
of the following: 
 
– US application in the preliminary determination of the practice known as "zeroing" 
negative dumping margins; 
  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 5 
 
 
 – US resort in the preliminary determination to the use of so-called "adverse facts 
available" to determine normal va lues for one Thai exporter;  and 
 
– US failure to make due allowances in th e preliminary 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.  
 On 20 December 2004, Japan and Brazil requested to join the consultations.  On 22 December 
2004, the European Communites requested to jo in the consultations. On December 23 2004,  
China, India and Ecuator 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 concerning 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 fro m the EC, the US violates its WTO obligations 
with respect to the following measures:  
– the Tariff Act of 1930, in particular section 77 6, 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 submitted 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 "a dverse inference" in the selection of facts 
available with respect to FRSS;  and 
 – the reliance by the DOC on informati on contained 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 a nd 13), 18.4 and Annex II of the 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 defi nitive anti-dumping measures imposed by India 
on the following seven products: Acrylic fibres; Analgin; Potassium permanganate; 
Paracetamol; Sodium nitrite; Caustic  soda; and Green veneer tape.  WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 6  
 
 According to the request for consultations from Chinese Taipei, India violates its WTO 
obligations in a number of ways, including: 
– the rejection of the information provided by exporters without providing reasons; and 
the lack of satisfaction as to the accuracy a nd reliability of the information provided 
by the domestic industry;  
 
– the initiation of the investigations and imposition of the anti-dumping duties, despite 
no imports of the product concerned from Chin ese Taipei into India during the Period 
of Investigation, and despite the insuffici ently substantiated petitions for the initiation 
on the existence of dumping and injury; 
 
– the lack of correct determination of the normal value and export price; 
 – the determination of injury not b ased on positive evidence or an objective 
examination and without examining a ll injury factors mentioned by the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement (ADA); and the dete rmination of the threat of material 
injury not on facts but on allegation, conjecture or remote possibility;   
 – the lack of demonstration that the dumpe d imports were causing the alleged 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 the interested parties the essential facts under 
consideration which form the basis for the decision; 
 
– provisional measures imposed for more th an 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 defi nitive findings lacking in all relevant 
information of facts and law and reas ons which led to the imposition of the 
anti-dumping measures. 
 Chinese Taipei considers that these Indian 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/DS317 – United States – Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft 
Complaint by the European Communities. On  6 October 2004, the European Communities 
requested consultations with the United States c oncerning prohibited and actionable subsidies 
provided to US producers of large civil airc raft (LCA) and in particular the BOEING 
company, as well as legislation, regulations, statutory instruments and amendments thereto providing such subsidies, grants, and any ot her 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 legi slation, regulations, statutory instruments and 
amendments thereto provide pr ohibited and actionable subsidi es, grants, and other assistance 
to US producers of large civil aircraft, partic ularly the Boeing company, contrary to certain  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 7 
 
 
 provisions of Articles 3.1(a) and (b), 3.2, 5(a)  and (c), and 6.3(a), (b) and (c) of the SCM 
Agreement and Article III:4 of GATT 1994.  The measures cited in the EC complaint include  specified state and local subsidies for the 
production of the Boeing 7E7; specified NASA rese arch and development subsidies; specified 
Department of Defense research and developmen t subsidies; specified National Institute of 
Standards and Technology subsidies; FSC/ETI subsidies; research 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 provisions referred to above, as 
such and as applied.  The EC further notes that the use of these m easures 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 civ il aircraft industry in a manner that violates US 
obligations under provisions of Artic les 5 and 6 of the SCM Agreement. 
 
5. WT/DS316 – European Communities and Certain Member States – Measures Affecting 
Trade in Large Civil Aircraft 
Complaint by the United States. On 6 Oct ober 2004, the European Communities requested 
consultations with the the Governments of Ge rmany, France, the United Kingdom, and Spain 
(the "member States"), and with the Eur opean 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 incons istent 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 ai d"); 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 Air bus, and any other measur es involving a financial 
contribution 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 certai n launch aid provided for the A340 and A380 
appear to be illegal export subsid ies in contravention of certain provisions of Article 3 of the 
SCM Agreement.  The United States is further concerned that the measures 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  the United States under GATT 1994 within the 
meaning of Article XXIII:1. 
 WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 8  
 
 6. WT/DS314 – Mexico – Provisional Countervailin g Measures on Olive Oil from the EC  
Complaint by the European Communities. On  18 August 2004, the European Communities 
requested consultations with Mexico concer ning the imposition by Mexico of provisional 
countervailing measures on imports of olive oil originating in the European Communities. 
  
According to the request for consultations  from the European Communities, Mexico's 
initiation of the foregoing count ervailing duty investigation and its subsequent imposition of 
provisional measures are inconsistent  with Mexico's obligations under inter alia  Articles 10, 
11 (in particular paragraphs 2, 3,  4, and 9) 15, 16 and 17 (in par ticular Article 17.1(a) and (b)) 
of the SCM Agreement, and Article 13 and/or Article 21.1 of the Agreement on Agriculture.
 
 
According to the request from the European Communities, the foregoing inconsistencies are 
claimed in such aspects as:  
• the initiation of an investigation in the ab sence of sufficient evidence that a domestic 
industry is suffering injury as a result of subsidised imports; 
 
• the failure to review the accuracy and ade quacy of the evidence in the application to 
determine whether there was sufficient ev idence to initiate an investigation; 
 
• the failure to establish whether the applica tion was made by or on behalf of the 
domestic industry of the like product; 
 
• the failure to reject the application and to  terminate promptly the investigation as 
soon as the Mexican authorities should have been  satisfied that there was insufficient 
evidence to initiate and/or pro ceed with the investigation; 
 
• the imposition of provisional countervailing me asures: despite the failure to correctly 
define the domestic industry; despite the failure to initiate 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 retardation; and 
despite the failure to establish a causal link between the allegedly subsidised imports 
and the alleged injury. 
 
7. WT/DS311 – United States – Reviews of Countervailing Duty on Softwood Lumber from 
Canada 
Complaint by Canada. On 14 April 2004, Canada request consultations with the United States 
concerning: (i) the failure of the US Departme nt of Commerce (DOC) to complete expedited 
reviews of the countervailing duty order con cerning certain softwood lumber products from 
Canada in order to promptly establish an individual countervailing duty rate for each 
requesting exporter; and (ii) the refusal and failure of USDOC to conduct company-specific 
administrative reviews of the same counterva iling duty order in order to establish a final 
individual countervailing duty rate  for each requesting exporter. 
Canada claims that the United States has violated  its obligations under Articles 10, 19.1, 19.3, 
19.4, 21.1, 21.2, 21.4 and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement and Article VI:3 of GATT 1994.   
The final countervailing duty order whose exped ited and administrative reviews are at issue in 
this dispute was at issue in WT/DS257.   WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 9 
 
 
 8. 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 the 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-dumpi ng and countervailing duties applied as a result of 
the final determination above. 
Canada claims 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, 3.4, 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 establishm ent of a panel. At its meeting on 22 June 
2004, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.    
 
9. 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 cons ultations 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 , intends to proceed with consultations with 
the EC regarding some measures which were alr eady the subject of its previous request along 
with additional measures recently adopte d by the EC. The measures listed are, inter alia :  
 
• EC Regulation 1177/2002 ("TDM Regulations")  (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 St ates of subsidies in support of commercial 
vessels built in the EC, in various forms including operational 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' im plementing 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 guarant ees for the building of commercial vessels 
subject to a minimum domestic content in Fi nland, France, Germany, Italy, and The 
Netherlands;   
• The guarantee by Germany of all obligations  of the Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau 
("Kfw");  
• The provision in Germany of public fa llback guarantees with respect to credits 
granted for the financing of ships build in German yards in the five coastal Länder. WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 10  
 
  
 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 Measures ("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. 
 
10. WT/DS306 – India – Anti-Dumping Measure on Batteries from Bangladesh 
 Complaint by Bangladesh. This is the first dispute involving an LDC Member as a principal 
party to a dispute. On 28 January 2004, Ba ngladesh requested consultations with India 
concerning a certain anti-dumping measure imposed by India on imports of lead acid batteries from Bangladesh. Bangladesh is particularly c oncerned about the following aspects of the 
investigation by the Indian authority leading to the imposition of the definitive anti-dumping duties: 
 
• Initiation of the investigation, notwithst anding the unsubstantiated claim of the 
applicants that the application was "by or  on behalf of the domestic industry"; and 
failure to immediately terminate the inv estigation, notwithsta nding the negligible 
volume of imports from Bangladesh; 
• determination of margin (determination of normal value; apparent adoption of 
constructed value; determination of export price;  and comparison between normal 
value and export price);  
• determination of injury and causation (exa mination of import volume, the effect on 
prices, and the impact on domestic producers of like products; inclusion of imports from Bangladesh in the assessment of the effects of imports; evaluation and examination of relevant factors; and ex amination of the causal link between the 
imports and the alleged injury);  
• treatment of evidence (failure to consider information submitted by the interested 
parties from Bangladesh; treatment of information submitted by the applicants as 
confidential; failure to disclose to the inte rested parties the "essential facts under 
consideration which form the basis for the decision to apply definitive measures" and 
other relevant information) 
• failure to provide the parties and give public  notice of "all relevant information on the 
matters of fact and law and reasons wh ich have led to the imposition of final 
measures". 
 
Bangladesh considers that the foregoing Indian measure is inconsistent with: Article VI of 
GATT 1994, including Articles VI:1, VI:2 and VI:6(a); Articles 1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7, 5.4, 5.8, 6.2, 6.4, 6.5, 6.8 (i ncluding para. 3 of Anne x II), 6.9 and 12.2 of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement. Furthermore, Bangladesh considers that, as a result of the 
imposition of the anti-dumping duties, India may be  acting inconsistently with its obligations 
under Articles I:1 and II:1 of GATT 1994. Bangla desh also considers that the benefits 
accruing to it directly or indirectly under the WTO Agreement are being nullified or impaired pursuant to Articles XXIII:1(a) and XXIII:1(b), respectively, of GATT 1994.  On 11 February 2004, the European Communiti es requested to join the consultations.  
  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 11 
 
 
 C. YEAR  2003 
1. WT/DS305 – Egypt – Measures Affecting Imports of Textile and Apparel Products 
Complaint by the United States. On 23 December 2003, the United States requested 
consultations with Egypt concerning the tariffs a pplied by Egypt to certa in textile and apparel 
products and the Decree of the President of the Arab Republic of Egypt No. 469 of the year 
2001 ("Decree No. 469") and any amendments, related regulations or other implementing 
measures.  The United States alleges that, in the Uruguay R ound, Egypt agreed that: (a) it would remove 
a general prohibition on the importation of appare l and made-up textile products by January 1, 
2002; (b) it would bind its duties under HS Chap ters 61 (articles of apparel and clothing, 
knitted and crocheted) and 62 (artic les of apparel and clothing, not  knitted or crocheted) at an 
ad valorem  rate of 46 percent in 2003, 43 percent in  2004 and 40 percent thereafter, and (c) it 
would bind its duties under HS Chapter 63 (other made up textile articles; sets; worn clothing) 
at an ad valorem  rate of 41 percent in 2003, 38 per cent in 2004, and 35 percent thereafter. 
 
The United States alleges that, on December 31, 2001 Egypt issued Decree No. 469 which 
amended the customs duties applicable to a number of imported articles, including articles that enter under HS Chapters 61, 62 and 63, and imposed specific duties ( i.e., in Egyptian 
pounds per piece of clothing), rather than ad valorem  duties.  The United States alleges that 
these specific duties greatly exceed Egypt's bound rates of duty.  According to the United 
States, the ad valorem  equivalent of these duties ranges from 141 percent to 51,296 percent.  
The United States considers that these tariffs , Decree No. 469 and any related measures are 
inconsistent with the obligations of Egypt un der Article II of the GATT 1994 and Article 7 of 
the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing. 
 
On 15 January 2004, the European Communities requested to join the consultations. On 
22 January 2004, Egypt accepted the request.   
2. WT/DS304 – India – Anti-Dumping Measures on Imports of Certain Products from the  
European Communities 
 Complaint by the European Communities.  On 8 December 2003, the EC requested 
consultations with India concerning certain an tidumping measures on im ports of 27 products 
originating in the EC or EC member states. 
  According to the request for consultations from 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  demonstrate that dumped imports were 
causing the alleged injury, and failed to ex amine other known factors and ensure that 
injury caused by those other factors was not attributed to dumping; 
• the Indian investigating authority did not properly inform interested parties of the 
relevant essential facts under consideration which formed the basi s for the decision to 
apply the anti-dumping measures and in suffi cient time for those parties to defend 
their interests; WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 12  
 
 • the Indian investigating authority did not properly inform interested parties of the 
reasons why it did not accept evidence or information they 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 info rmation supplied by interested parties in 
particular by their domestic industry;  
• the public notice of information concluding  the investigation did not contain all 
relevant information on the matters of f act and law and reasons which led to the 
imposition of the anti-dumping measures. 
  The EC considers that these Indian 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 Taipei  requested to join the consultations. On 
22 January 2004, India accepted both requests.  
 
3. WT/DS303 – Ecuador – Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Medium Density 
Fibreboard 
Complaint by Chile. On 24 November 2003, Chile  requested consultations with Ecuador in 
respect of a definitive safeguard measure app lied by Ecuador on imports of medium density 
fibreboard.   
 Chile alleges that there were no "unforeseen de velopments", no increase in imports and no 
threat of serious injury.  Chile alleges that  the Ecuadorian authorities' investigation was 
flawed because it did not analyze all product sub- categories covered by the measure, and that 
their report was inadequate because it did not c ontain an adequate and reasoned explanation 
of all relevant factors having a bearing on th e situation of the domestic industry, did not 
demonstrate a causal relationship between a supposed increase in imports and a supposed threat of serious injury, did not respect the pr inciple of non-attribution of injury caused by 
other factors, did 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 application of the measure we re also excluded from the investigation. 
 Chile also alleges that Ecuador did not expl ain the method by which it will administer and 
allot quota shares among supplying countries, di d not specify the critical circumstances which 
justified imposition of the prior provisional m easure and was late in notifying the measure to 
the WTO. 
 Chile considers that the measure is inconsistent with substantiv e 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. 
 
4. WT/DS300 – Dominican Republic – Measures Affecting the Importation of Cigarettes 
 Complaint by Honduras.  On 28 August 2003, Honduras requested consultations with the 
Dominican Republic concerning its measures whic h affect the importation of cigarettes. 
 
 Honduras' request concerns three types of measures:   (a) The manner in which the tax base is assessed for purposes of collection of the 
Selective Tax on Consumption regarding ciga rettes, which in Honduras' view creates  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 13 
 
 
 a less favourable treatment for Honduran cigarettes than that  received 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; 
 
 (b) The requirement that stamps must be af fixed on the product inside the territory of the 
Dominican Republic and under supervision of  its tax authorities, which in Honduras' 
view creates a less favourable treatment fo r Honduran cigarettes than that received by 
like domestic products.  This is also inc onsistent with the Dominican Republic's 
obligations under Article III:4 of GATT 1994; and, 
 
 (c) The requirement that importers, includi ng importers of cigarettes, post a bond as a 
pre-requisite for importation, which in Hondur as' view 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 inc onsistent with the Dominican Republic's 
obligations under Article XI:1 of GATT 1994. 
  Honduras claimed that such measures unduly restrict its exports to Dominican Republic and 
nullify or impair benefits accruing to Honduras under the WTO Agreement. 
 5. WT/DS298 – Mexico – Certain Pricing Meas ures for Customs Valuation and Other 
Purposes 
 Complaint by Guatemala.  On 22 July 2003, Guatemala requested consultations with Mexico 
concerning certain Mexican customs rules, procedures and administrative practices which impose officially established prices for customs valuation and other purposes.  Guatemala 
also contested the Mexican authorities' practi ce of requiring a deposit or bond to guarantee the 
observance of these officially established prices. 
  In Guatemala's view, Mexican customs rules, procedures and administrative practices at issue 
are inconsistent with Mexico's oblig ations under the following WTO provisions: 
 
 (a) Articles I, II, VII and X of GATT 1994; 
  (b) Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 22 of the Customs Valuation 
Agreement; 
 
 (c) Article 4 of the Agriculture Agreement; 
 (d) Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.  
6. WT/DS297 – Croatia – Measure Affecting Impo rts of Live Animals and Meat Products 
 Complaint by Hungary.  On 9 July 2003, H ungary requested consultations with Croatia 
regarding certain measures taken by Croatia affecting imports of live animals and meat 
products. 
  According to Hungary, the import measure w as introduced by Croatia on 5 June 2003 without 
notification to the SPS Committee.  The measure is alleged to aim at the prevention of the 
spread of the BSE disease.  Apart from rumina nts, it applies to all other animals of any 
economic significance such as live pigs, poultry a nd fish and products thereof.  The measure 
prohibits imports unless there is a prohibition in the exporting country on feeding animals WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 14  
 
 with feed containing animal protein (fish meal is also not allowed to be used under all 
circumstances).  
  Hungary asserts that the measure introduced by Croatia is not based on any scientific 
principle linked to the prevention of the spread of BSE.  Hungary considers that there is no 
scientific basis for applying such feeding require ments to animals other than ruminants.  The 
Hungarian authorities are unaware of any case wh ere 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 Hungarian 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: 
 
 (a) Articles XI and XX of the GATT 1994; 
  (b) 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. 
 
7. WT/DS289 – Czech Republic– Additional Duty  on Imports of Pig Meat from Poland. 
Complaint by Poland.  On 14 April 2003, Poland requested 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 published on 25 March 2003 a 
Decree dated 12 March 2003 which provides that customs duties levied under tariff heading 
0203 11 10 on pig meat imported from Poland sh all be 50% above the Czech 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 mini mum import price as the aforementioned duty rate 
does not apply to imports with declared cu stoms value exceeding 36 CZK/kg.  No other 
sources of imports have been mentioned in th e 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 inconsistent with the obligations of the Czech 
Republic under Article 4 of the WTO Ag reement on Agriculture and constitutes a 
nullification and impairment of the rights and be nefits, 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 im plementation of the said measure had not been 
preceded by any bilateral notice or consultations, wi th the Decree taking effect on the date of 
its publication.    
8. WT/DS288 – South Africa – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Blanketing from 
Turkey 
Complaint by Turkey.  On 10 April 2003, Turk ey 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 investigation by the South African Board 
on Tariffs and Trade (BTT) into the alleged ci rcumvention of anti-dumping duties on blankets 
originating in or imported from Turkey.   
  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 15 
 
 
  Turkey claims that:  (i) the TBT failed to ensure  proper notifications;  (ii) the establishment of 
facts was not proper;  and (iii) the TBT's evaluation of these facts was not unbiased and objective, particularly in relation to the initia tion 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-Dump ing Agreement;  and Articles III and X of the 
GATT 1994. 
 D. 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 India concerning import restrictions maintained by 
India under its Export and Import Policy 2002-2007  with respect to particular 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 issue cannot be justified under Articles XX or 
XXI of GATT 1994. 
  On 17 January 2003, the US requested to join the 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 backdated to 
30 July 2002, at a rate of 14% ad valorem.  
  Argentina alleges that Chile's safeguard me asure 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; WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 16  
 
 • the investigating authorities' report was not  published and did not contain findings 
and reasoned conclusions on all pe rtinent issues of fact and law; 
• the measure is applied beyond the permissible extent; and 
• Chile reapplied the measure before the e nd of the minimum permitted non-application 
period. 
 
3. WT/DS275 – Venezuela – Import Licensing Meas ures on Certain Agricultural Products  
Complaint by the United States.  On 7 November 2002 the United States requested 
consultations with Venezuela concerning Venezuelan import licensing systems and practices that restrict agricultural imports from the Un ited States.  According to the United States, 
Venezuela has established import licensing requi rements for numerous agricultural products, 
including corn, sorghum, dairy products (for exam ple, 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 appear s to have established a discretionary import 
licensing regime for the above products.  It fu rther claimed that, through its import licensing 
practices, Venezuela has failed to establish a tr ansparent and predictable system for issuing 
import licenses and has severely restricted and distorted trade in these goods.  
 
 The United States alleges that Venezuela's im port licensing systems and practices appear to 
be inconsistent with Article 4.2 of the Agre ement on Agriculture;  Articles III, X, XI, and 
XIII of GATT 1994;  Article 2.1 of the TRIMs Agr eement, and Articles 1.4, 3.2, 3.5, 5.1, 5.2, 
and 5.3 of the Import Licensing Agreement.  Ve nezuela's measures also appear to nullify or 
impair the benefits accruing to the United Stat es 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 re quested to join the consultations.  On 
22 November 2002, Argentina and Colombia re quested to join the consultations.  On 
25 November 2002, Venezuela informed th e DSB that it had accepted the requests of 
Argentina, Canada, Chile, the EC and Ne w Zealand to join the consultations. 
 
4. WT/DS274 – United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain Steel 
Products  
Complaint by Chinese Taipei.  On 1 November 2002, Chinese Taipei requested consultations 
with the United States with regard to saf eguard measures on steel imposed by the United 
States on imports of certain steel products.  Th ese measures are currently been reviewed by a 
Panel in the joint cases WT/DS248, WT/D S249, 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  measures 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 a lloy fittings and flanges, stainless steel bar, 
stainless steel rod, tin mill products and stainl ess steel wire, and in the form of a tariff rate 
quota on imports of slabs.  These measures we re published in the Pr oclamation 7529, dated 
5 March 2002 (Federal Register Vol. 67, No 45 of 7 March 2002).  Chinese Taipei considers 
that 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.     WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 17 
 
 
 On 21 November 2002, Japan requested to join the consultations.  The United States informed 
that DSB that it accepted the request of  Japan to join the consultations. 
 5. WT/DS272 – Peru – Provisional Anti-Dumping Duties on Vegetable Oils from Argentina 
Complaint by Argentina.  On 21 October 2002, Ar gentina requested consultations with Peru 
on its anti-dumping investigation on imports of sunflower and soja vege table oils and their 
mixtures originating in Argentina (Resolu tion 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-INDE COPI).  Argentina considered that both 
the on-going investigation and the provisional determination of the existence of dumping, 
injury and causal link which led to the im position of provisional anti-dumping duties, are 
inconsistent with Peru's obligati ons 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 an ti-dumping 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,  the Philippines requested consultations with 
Australia on certain measures affecting the impor tation 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 issu ed pursuant thereto, including Plant 
Biosecurity Policy Memorandum 2002/45 (requiring that fresh pineapple fruit from The Philippines, the Solomon Islands, Sr i Lanka, and Thailand shall, among other 
requirements, be de-crowned and subjected to pre-shipment methyl bromide fumigation as conditions for importation into Australia); 
• Amendments to any of the foregoing;  and  
• Their application.   
 
 The Philippines considered that these measur es are inconsistent with the obligations of 
Australia under the GATT 1994 and the SPS Agreemen t.  The relevant provisions of these 
agreements include, but are not limited to Articles XI and XIII of the GATT 1994, and 
Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 10 of the SPS Agreement. 
 
 On 1 November 2002, the EC and Thailand re quested to join the consultations.  On 7 
November 2002, Australia informed the DSB that  it had accepted the requests of the EC and 
Thailand to join the consultations. 
 WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 18  
 
 7. WT/DS263 – European Communities – Measures Affecting Imports of Wine 
Complaint by Argentina.  On 4 September 2002,  Argentina requested consultations with the 
EC regarding several EC regulations and othe r mandatory 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 th e countries of the EU and third countries. 
 
Argentina considered that these measures are inc onsistent with Articles 2 and 12 of the TBT 
Agreement, Articles I:1 and III:4 of GATT 1994 and 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) and 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 corro sion-resistant steel from France and from 
Germany and of the countervailing duty orde r on corrosion-resistant steel from France; 
• the determinations of the US Internationa l 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 st eel 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 implemen ting regulations and in the Policy Bulletin 
issued by the DOC. 
 
 In its request for consultations, the EC consid ered 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 regul ations.  The EC considered that the above 
determinations are not in conform ity 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 respectively Canada a nd 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 requested consultations with Turkey.  This 
request was in respect of Turkey's import ba n on pet food from Hungary.  Hungary claimed 
that this import ban, which applies to any European country from the 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  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 19 
 
 
 noted that its pet food is used exclusively fo r the feeding of cats and dogs.  In addition, 
Hungary submitted that there was neither offi cial publication of the Turkish regulation 
imposing the ban, nor notification 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 appears to nullify and impair the benefits 
accruing to Hungary directly or indi rectly under the said agreements. 
 
10. WT/DS247 – United States – Provisional Anti-Dumping Measure on Imports of Certain 
Softwood Lumber from Canada 
Complaint by Canada.  On 6 March 2002, Cana da requested consultations under Article 4.8 
of the DSU (urgency procedure) with the United States regarding an anti-dumping measure 
applied by the US to imports of softwood lumber from Canada.    Specifically, Canada expressed concern about th ree aspects of the US anti-dumping measure.  
Canada considered that:   
 
• the initiation of the investigation was, therefor e, inconsistent with Articles 5.2 and 5.3 of 
the AD Agreement and, therefore, the application of provisional measures was inconsistent with Article 7.1 of the AD Agreement; 
 
• the preliminary dumping determination was inc onsistent with Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the 
AD Agreement;  and 
 
• the "zeroing" methodology applied by the US in the preliminary investigation was 
inconsistent with Article 2.4.2 of the AD Agreement. 
 The US, although accepting the request for consu ltations, however did not accept that this 
was a case of urgency for the purpose of Article 4.8 of the DSU. 
 
E. YEAR
 2001 
1. WT/DS242 – European Communities – Ge neralized System of Preferences 
 Complaint by Thailand.  On 7 December 2001, Thailand requested consultations with the EC 
under Article XXIII of GATT 1994 in respect of measures under the EC's Generalized 
System of Preferences ("GSP") scheme.  The GSP scheme was at the time implemented 
through Council Regulation (EC) No. 2820/98 of 21 December 1998 applying a multiannual 
scheme of generalized tariff preferences for th e period of 1 July 1999 to 31 December 2001, 
and was expected to continue to be implemented through the Amended Proposal for a Council 
Regulation applying a scheme of generalized ta riff preferences for the period 1 January 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, Thailand 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. 
 WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 20  
 
  According to Thailand, the benefits accruing to it directly or indirectly under the WTO 
Agreement are being nullified or im paired as a result of this alle ged 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 measures 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 consultations 
under Article XXIII.  Colombia raised the ma tter under "other business" in the DSB of 
18 January 2002.  It admitted that it was not de jure  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, Braz il requested consultations with the US.  On 
1 November 2001, Brazil requested that their or iginal request for consultations be cancelled 
and replaced with a new request.  In this new request, Brazil 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 th e Department and in Section 771(35) of 
the Tariff Act of 1930.  
 According to Brazil, the above methodologies are in consistent 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 jo in 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 requested consultations with Argentina 
concerning Argentina's Law No. 24.766 and Decr ee No. 150/92. According to India, these 
measures constitute unnecessary obstacles to in ternational trade and prevent Indian 
medicines, drugs and other pharmaceuticals from entering into the Argentinean market, 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, Mini stry of Health of Argentina. The above 
Decree contains two annexes listing countries.   WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 21 
 
 
 • In respect of Annex I countries, pharmaceuti cal products are required to be manufactured 
in facilities approved by the relevant governmental bodies of these countries or by the Argentinean Ministry of Health and meet the 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 Ar gentina 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 access for Indian drugs and 
pharmaceutical products in Argentina.  India c onsidered that infringement of the following 
provisions have taken place:  Articles 2 (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 a nd Modification of Schedules regarding 
Sugar 
Complaint by Colombia. On 17 April 2001, Colo mbia requested consultations with Chile 
concerning the definitive safeguard measures im posed 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 interest to be cons ulted with respect to the modifi cation 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 Co lombia, the above measures are inconsistent 
with Chile's obligations under the following provisi ons Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 and 12 of the 
Safeguards Agreement;  Articles II, XIX and XXVI II of GATT 1994;  a nd the Understanding 
on the Interpretation of Article XXVIII of  the GATT 1994 and the Guidelines of 10 
November 1980 regarding Procedures fo r Negotiations under Article XXVIII. 
  According to Colombia, the Chilean measures, taken together or individually, appear to 
nullify and impair benefits accruing to Colombia under the cited agreements.  As indicated by 
Colombia in its request, this new request replace s in its totality the request 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 requested 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 continue anti-dumping duties on Indian jute 
products despite the fact that the non-existen ce of that company was brought to the notice 
of the authorities; 
• non-consideration of the fresh evidence regard ing 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 re view and imposition of anti-dumping duties; 
and WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 22  
 
 • 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 wh ich these determinations and legal provisions 
appear to be inconsistent include, but are not limited to Articles 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. 
  In addition, the determination to continue  the anti-dumping duties allegedly nullifies and 
impairs benefits accruing to India under, or ot herwise impedes 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 imports of those products. On 
10 January 2001 the notification by Chile of the initiation of the 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 safegua rd measure is inconsistent with 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 February 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") fro m 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 Nove mber 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 Ac t of 1930 and in the implementing regulations 
issued by the DOC.  
 The EC considered that the final results of th e sunset 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 requested 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 C ode, 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  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 23 
 
 
 subject invention in the US unless such pers on agrees that any products embodying the 
subject invention or produced through the use of the invention will be manufactured 
substantially in the US. 
• Brazil also referred to a requirement that  each funding agreement with a small business 
firm or non-profit organization shall contain appropriate provisions to effectuate the 
above-mentioned requirement; and 
• the statutory restrictions limiting the right to use or sell any federally owned invention in 
the US only to a licensee that agrees 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 and other provisions of the US Patents 
Code, to "understand how the US justifies th e 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-rate quota (TRQ) on corn gluten feed imported from the US.  The TRQ was made applic able 5 days after 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  the requirements of the Safeguards Agreement 
for a Member to suspend concessions or other ob ligations and, therefore, the imposition of the 
TRQ on corn gluten feed imported from the US a ppears 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, Gu atemala requested consultations with Chile 
concerning:  
(1) the Chilean legislation regarding safeguards and price band systems, including Law 
18.525, as subsequently amended by La w 18.591 and Law 19.546, as well as 
implementing regulations and comple mentary and/or amending provisions; 
(2) the initiation of an investigation regardi ng 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 no tification (G/SG/N/7/CHL/2/Suppl.1), and 
the definitive determination containe d in notifications (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 oils are subject to said safeguard measures; 
(3) the request for an extension of th ese 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,  WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 24  
 
 • 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  
• 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. 
 F. YEAR
 2000 
1. WT/DS218 – United States- Countervailing Duties 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 dut y practice and the imposition of countervailing 
duties on certain carbon steel products originati ng in Brazil. Brazil is concerned with the 
practice of the US of applying its countervaili ng duty laws so as to consistently find that 
privatized companies benefit from pre-privati zation subsidy benefits, and the unwillingness of 
the United States to bring its practice into confor mity with the SCM Agreement.  In addition, 
Brazil is concerned with the results of a continued imposition of an order and a final 
countervailing duty decision by the US based on a finding that the benefits from equity infusions provided to companies prior to their privatization are passed through to the 
companies following a change in ownership and control.  
 Brazil considered that findings that three co mpanies 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 suppo sed benefits from equity infusions granted to 
the companies prior to their privatization.  In  addition, Brazil considers that the 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 sam e analysis of subsidization following a 
privatization, which was found to be inconsis tent 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 measure on electronic transformers 
having a power of more than 10.000 KVA, classified under tariff line 8504.23.01 of the 
General Import Law, from Brazil.  Brazil cons idered that the above determination and the 
resulting provisional measures are inconsistent  with Mexico's obligations under the AD 
Agreement and 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, Korea requested consultations with the 
Philippines concerning the Preliminary and Fina l Determinations of the Tariff Commission of 
the Philippines on Polypropylene Resins from Korea, dated 15 November 1999 and 
11 September 2000 respectively.  Korea considered  that errors were made by the Philippines 
in those determinations which resulted in err oneous findings and defective conclusions with 
regard to, among others, like product, dum ping, injury, and causality, as well as the 
imposition, calculation and collection of anti-dum ping 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.  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 25 
 
 
  
4. WT/DS209 – European Communities – Measures Affecting Soluble Coffee 
Complaint by Brazil.  On 12 October 2000, Br azil requested consultations with the EC 
concerning measures applied under the EC's Generalized System of Preferences scheme (GSP) that affect imports of soluble coffee or iginating in Brazil. The measures in question 
include the so-called "graduation" mechanism, which progressively and selectively reduces or 
eliminates preferences grante d to specific products and/or beneficiary countries under the 
GSP scheme;  and the "drugs regime", which confers a special preferential treatment for products originating in the Andean and Centra l American Common Market countries that are 
conducting a campaign to combat drugs. 
 
According to Brazil, the EC legislation that establishes the special treatment for products – 
among which soluble coffee – is Council Regulati on (EC) No. 1256/96, dated 20 June 1996, 
and current Council Regulation (EC) No. 2820/98, dated 21 December 1998. Brazil 
considered that the above measures, both sep arately and jointly, adversely affect the 
importation into the EC of soluble coffee originating in Brazil. Brazil alleged that these 
measures 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, Br azil requested 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 Tu rkish official gazette on 26 April 2000).  
Brazil considered that Turkey failed to ensure  proper notifications in this case, that its 
establishment 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 th e 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 incons istently 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 Ja nuary 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 that, through the above-mentioned measures, the Arab Republic of Egypt failed to  carry out its obligations under the following 
provisions of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization: Articles I, XI, and XIII of the GATT, and Articl es 2, 3 and 5, and Annex B, paragraph 2 and 
paragraph 5, of the SPS Agreement. 
 WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 26  
 
 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 Octobe r 1999 definitive anti-dumping measure on live 
swine for slaughter (merchandise classified  under tariff classification 0103.92.99 of the 
General Import Law) exported from the United States, independently from the country or 
origin, and actions by Mexico in the conduct of the anti-dumping investigation resulting in 
that measure.    
 In the view of the US the measures are in consistent 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 Agre ement;  and Articles III:4 and XI:1 of the 
GATT 1994. 
 
8. WT/DS201 – Nicaragua – Measures Affe cting Imports from Honduras and 
Colombia (II) 
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 consider ed 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 of 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 Trad e Act of 1974, as last amended by Section 407 
of the Trade and Development Act of 2000 (Pub lic Law 106-200).  The EC considered that 
Section 306, as amended, provides for a mandato ry and unilateral revision of the list of 
products subject to suspension of GATT 1994 conc essions or other Section 301(a) action 120 
days after the application of the first suspensi on 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 th reats to suspend concessions or other 
obligations other than those on which author isation was granted by the DSB.  As a 
practical result, all US concessions bound in its Schedule of commitments 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 th e 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 ma rket-place, thus affecting the security and 
predictability of the multilateral trading system. 
  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 27 
 
 
  Hence, the EC considered that Section 30 6 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended by 
Section 407 of the Trade and Development Act of 2000, is inconsistent w ith, 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 impor t prices for customs valuation purposes.  The 
measures at issue are Decree No. 2.498/98 and ot her related statutes and regulations, which 
establish a system to verify the declared va lues of imported goods.  The US asserted that 
Brazil utilises this verification system – in conjunction with non-automatic 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 that 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 Licensing 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, Mexi co requested consultations with Ecuador 
concerning a definitive anti-dumping measure im posed 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 Ec uador's actions preceding that measure.  
Mexico alleged that the definitive anti-dumping measure and the actions that preceded it, including the imposition of the provisional an ti-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 20 00, 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 Du ties Regulations of 1996.  Costa Rica 
claimed that these measures are inconsistent partic ularly 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 January 2000, the EC requested 
consultations with the US in respect of S ection 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 Regula tions.  The EC alleged 
that those measures violate Article III of GATT 1994 and TRIPS Agreement Articles 2 (in WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 28  
 
 conjunction with Article 2 Paris Convention), 3, 9 (in conjunction with Article 5 Berne 
Convention), 27, 41, 42, 49, 50 and 51.  
 G. YEAR
 1999 
1. WT/DS185 – Trinidad and Tobago – Certain Measures Affecting Imports of Pasta from 
Costa Rica 
 Complaint by Costa Rica.  On 18 November 1999,  Costa 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", 
• 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 inconsistent 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  request, dated 14 October 1999, is in respect 
of a number of Brazilian measures, particular ly Brazil's non-automatic licensing system and 
the minimum pricing practice, which allegedly restrict EC exports – notably of textile 
products, Sorbitol and Carboxymethylcellulose (C MC).  The EC claimed that those Brazilian 
measures violate, in particular, Articles II, V III, X and XI of the GATT 1994; Article 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 Ag reement 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 consu ltations with Ecuador 
concerning a provisional anti-dumping measure im posed by Ecuador, through publication in 
the Official Register of 14 July 1999, on im ports 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 syrups 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 alleged that these measures 
nullify or impair benefits accr uing to it under the same provisions of the GATT and the 
Agreement on Agriculture.   
  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 29 
 
 
 5. WT/DS172 – European Communities – Measu res Relating to the Development of a 
Flight Management System 
Complaint from the United States. On 21 May 1999,  the US requested consultations with the 
EC in respect of alleged actionable subsidies granted or maintained to a French company, 
Sextant Avionique ("Sextant"), to develop a ne w flight management system ("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 pr eferential and non-commercial terms, in the 
amount of 140 million French francs, to be dis bursed over three years, for a project in which 
Sextant will develop a FMS adapted to Airbus ai rcraft.  The US considered that this aid: 
 
• is a specific subsidy within the meaning of Articles 1 and 3 of the SCM Agreement, 
which subsidy has caused and continues to cau se adverse effects within the meaning of 
Article 5 of the SCM Agreement; 
• has caused and continues to cause serious prej udice within the meaning of Articles 5(c) 
and 6 of the SCM Agreement because the subs idy 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 subsidised 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 nullifica tion or impairment of benefits accruing 
directly or indirectly to it under GATT 1994 with in the meaning of Article XXIII:1(b) of 
GATT 1994, and Article 5(b) of the SCM Agreement.  
 
6. 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 th e one addressed to the EC above (WT/DS172). 
 
7. WT/DS168 – South Africa – Anti-Dumping  Duties on the Import of 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), cont ained in its Report No . 3799, dated 3 October 
1997, on the import of certain pharmaceutical pr oducts from India.  India alleged that South 
Africa initiated anti-dumping proceedings ag ainst the importation of ampicillin and 
amoxycillin of 250mg capsules from India.  The BTT allegedly made a preliminary 
determination on 26 March 1997 that ampic illin and amoxycillin of 250mg and 500mg 
capsules, exported by M/S Randaxy Laboratories Ltd of India, were being dumped into the South African Customs Union (SACU).  This w as allegedly followed by a recommendation to 
impose final duties on these products by the BTT, which was reported on 10 September 1997.  
India contended that: 
 
• the definition and calculation by the BTT of normal 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 and indices having a bearing on the state of WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 30  
 
 the industry, which led to an erroneous determinati on of material 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. 
 
8. WT/DS167 – United States – Countervailing Duty Investigation with respect to Live 
Cattle from Canada 
Complaint by Canada.  On 19 March 1999, Ca nada requested consultations with the US 
concerning the initiation of a countervailing dut y investigation by the US, on 22 December 
1998, with respect to live cattle fro m Canada.  Canada 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 subsid ies either 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 counterva iling subsidy; and 
• this initiation of investigation is inconsistent  with US obligations under the Agreement on 
Agriculture relating to "due restraint".   
  Canada alleged violations of Articles 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 1999, the Czech Republic requested 
consultations with Hungary in respect of th e imposition of quantitative restrictions by 
Hungary on imports of a broad range of steel  products from the Czech Republic.  The Czech 
Republic alleged that Hungary imposed a safegua rd measure in the form of an import 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 C zech Republic contended that these quantitative 
restrictions 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 II 
 Complaint by Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Pana ma and the United States.  On 20 January 
1999, these countries (complaining parties) requested  consultations 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 implement the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings ended on 1 January 1999 (see WT/DS27).  The complaining parties alleged that the  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 31 
 
 
 EC modified its regime in a manner that will not permit this dispute to conclude at this time 
on the basis of a solution that is acceptable to  their governments, and as a result, jointly and 
severally, request consultations with the EC c oncerning the EC banana regime established by 
EC Regulation 404/93, as amended and impl emented by Council Regulation 1637/98 of 
20 July 1998 and EC Commission Regulation 2362/98 of 28 October 1998. The complaining 
parties contended that their objective is to clar ify 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 wa ys that the EC might modify its regime in 
order to produce a satisfactory settlement of this dispute.  
 
11. WT/DS157 – Argent ina – Anti-Dumping 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-dumping 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 bits 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 investigation 
exceeded 18 months, it was in violation of Article 1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. 
 H. YEAR
 1998 
1. WT/DS154 – European Communities – Measures Affecting Differential and Favourable 
Treatment of Coffee 
 Complaint by Brazil.  On 7 December 1998, Br azil requested consultations with the EC in 
respect of the special preferential treatment unde r 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 a nd 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.  Br azil stated that it is aware that there is a 
proposed Council Regulation which would unify a ll EC laws and regulations concerning the 
operation of the GSP scheme for both agricultu ral and industrial produc ts.  Brazil contended 
that this special treatment adversely affects the importation into the EC of soluble coffee 
originating in Brazil.  Brazil alleged that this  special treatment is inconsistent with the 
Enabling Clause, as well as with Article I of GA TT 1994.  Brazil further alleges that this 
special treatment nullifies or impairs benefits ac cruing to Brazil directly or indirectly under 
the cited provisions. 
 2. WT/DS153 – European Communities – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and 
Agricultural Products 
 Complaint by Canada.  On 2 December 1998, Ca nada requested consultations with the EC in 
respect of the protection of inventions in the area of pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical 
products under the relevant provisions of EC  legislation, particularly Council Regulation 
(EEC) No. 1768/92 and European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No. 1610/96, in 
relation to EC obligations under the TRIPS Agre ement.  Canada considered that under the 
above Regulations, a patent term extension sch eme, which is limited to pharmaceutical and 
agricultural chemical products, has been implem ented.  Canada alleged that Regulations 
(EEC) No. 1768/92 and (EC) No. 1610/96 are incons istent with the EC's obligations not to 
discriminate on the basis of field of technology, as provided by Article 27.1 of the TRIPS WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 32  
 
 Agreement, because these Regulations only apply to pharmaceutical and agricultural 
products. 
 
3. WT/DS150 – India – Measures Affecting Custom Duties 
 Complaint by the European Communities. On 30 October 1998, the EC re quested consultations 
with India concerning a series of increases in customs duties allegedly im plemented by India.  
The EC stated that the measures in question relate to Schedule 1 of the 1975 Customs Tariff 
Act, the Special Customs Duty, and the Special Additional Duty.  The EC contended that under 
these measures, the aggregate value of tariffs re sulting from the addition of the different duties 
applied by India exceed India's WTO bound rates under a series of tariff headings.  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 October 1998, the EC requested 
consultations with India concerning import restri ctions allegedly maintained 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 rest rictions to the WTO in Part A of Annex I to 
its notification of 20 May 1997 under paragra ph 9 of the Understanding on the Balance-of-
Payments 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, a nd cannot be justified under Articles XX or 
XXI of GATT 1994. 
 
5. WT/DS148 – Czech Republic – Measure Affecting Import Duty on Wheat from Hungary 
 Complaint from Hungary.  On 12 October 1998, Hungary requested consultations with the 
Czech Republic in respect of a regulation adopt ed by the Czech Republic which entered into 
force on 9 October 1998, and which allegedly in creased the 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 contended 
that this measure is inconsistent with Artic les I and II of GATT 1994, and Article 4 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture.  Hungary invoked the ur gency provision of the DSU (4.8), due to 
the severe economic and trade losses that ar e 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 October 1998, the EC requested 
consultations with Japan concerning the management of the tariff quotas for leather and the subsidies allegedly benefiting the leather indus try and "Dowa" regions in Japan.  The EC 
stated that the management of the three tariff quotas is specified in a notice published every 
year by the Ministry of International Trade & Industry (MITI), which is based on Article 6 of 
the Ministerial Order on the tariff quota syst em 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;  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 33 
 
 
 • many licenses are granted for quantities without  real 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 "Law concerning Special Fiscal Measures", 
which extended the duration of 15 subsidy programmes; and 
• these subsidies are specific and that the total value of these different subsidy programmes 
is liable to cause serious prejudice to its interests. 
 
 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 defi nitive countervailing duties allegedly imposed by 
Argentina on imports of wheat gluten from the EC.  The EC stated that Argentina imposed a countervailing duty on wheat gluten  imports from the EC with effect from 23 July 1998.  The 
investigation which led to th e imposition of these duties had be en initiated on 23 October 
1996 and, consequently, the EC contended th at the investigation exceeded 18 months, 
contrary to Article 11.11 of the Subsidies Agre ement.  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 September 1998,  Canada requested consultations 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 
alleged that these measures adversely affect th e importation into the United States of cattle, 
swine, and grain originating in Canada.  Canada a lleges violations of Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 13 
and Annexes B and C of the SPS Agreement; Artic les 2, 3, 5 and 7 of the TBT Agreement; 
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 nullificati on or impairment of benefits accruing to it 
under the cited Agreements.  Canada invoked Article 4.8 of the DSU for expedited 
consultations in view of the perishab le nature of the goods in question. 
 
9. WT/DS143 – Sl ovak Republic – Measure Affecting Import Duty on Wheat from 
Hungary 
 Complaint from Hungary. On 18 September 1998, Hungary requested consultations with the 
Slovak Republic in respect of a regulation adop ted by the Slovak Republic which entered into 
force on 10 September 1998, which allegedly in creased 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 whic h 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  WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 34  
 
 • 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 caused by this measure, wh ich 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- dumping investigations on unbleached 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: 
 
• the determination of standing, the initiation, the selection of the sample, the determination 
of dumping and the injury are inconsiste nt 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 Articl es 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-Dumping Agreement, 
and Articles I and VI of GATT 1994.  India al so alleged nullification and 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 consultations with the EC in respect 
of certain measures concerning the importation in to the EC market of wood of conifers from 
Canada.  The measures include, but are not limited to, C ouncil Directive 77/93, of 21 December 
1976, as amended by Commissi on Directive 92/103/EEC, of 1 December 1992, and any 
relevant measures adopted by EC Member stat es affecting imports of  wood of conifers from 
Canada into the EC.  Canada alleged that thes e adversely affect the importation into the EC 
market of wood of conifers from Canada.  Canada alleged violations of Articles I, III and XI of 
GATT 1994, Articles 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the SPS Agreem ent, and Article 2 of the TBT 
Agreement.  Canada also made a claim for nullifi cation and impairment of benefits  accruing to 
it indirectly under the cited agreements. 
 
12. WT/DS134 – European Communities – Measures Affecting Import Duties on Rice 
 Complaint by India.  On 28 May 1998, India reque sted consultations with the EC in respect of 
the restrictions allegedly intr oduced by an EC Regulation esta blishing a so-called cumulative 
recovery system (CRS), for determining certain import duties on rice, with effect from 1 July 
1997.  India contended that the measures introdu ced through this new regulation will restrict the 
number of importers of rice from India, and will have a limiting ef fect on the export of rice from 
India to the EC.  India alleged violations of Articles I, II, III, VII and XI of GATT 1994, 
Articles 1-7, 11 and Annex I of the Customs Valuation Agreement, Articles 1 and 3 of the 
Import Licensing Agreement, Article 2 of the TBT Agreement, Article 2 of the SPS Agreement, 
and Article 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  India also claimed nullification and impairment 
of benefits accruing to it unde r the various agreements cited.  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 35 
 
 
  
13. WT/DS133 – Slovak Republic – Measures Concerning the Importation of Dairy 
Products and the Transit of Cattle 
 Complaint by Switzerl and.  On 11 May 1998, Switzerland requested consulta tions with the 
Slovak Republic concerning measur es imposed by the Slovak Rep ublic (in particular, a decree 
of 6 July 1996) with respect to the importation of dairy products and the transit of cattle.  
Switzerland contended that these measures had a negative impact on Swiss exports of cheese and cattle.  Switzerl and alleged that some of these measures are inconsistent with Articles I, III, 
V, X and XI of GATT 1994, Arti cle 5 of the SPS Agreement, and Article 5 of the Import 
Licensing Agreement. 
 
14. WT/DS131 – France – Certain Income Tax Measures Constituting Subsidies 
 Complaint by the United States.  On 5 May 1998, the US requested consulta tions with France in 
respect of prohibited subsidies provided by France .  The United States alleges that, based on 
unofficial English translat ions of the relevant le gislation and descriptions  in secondary sources, 
it is its understanding that under French inco me tax law, a French company may deduct 
temporarily, certain start- up expenses of its foreign operati ons through 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 en d for medium-term credit risks in connection with 
export sales.  The US contended that each of these me asures constitute an export subsidy, and 
that the deduction for start-up expenses constitute  an import substitution subsidy, and as such 
both measures violate Articl e 3 of the SCM Agreement. 
 
15. WT/DS130 – Ireland – Certain Income Tax Measures Constituting Subsidies 
 Complaint by the United States.  On 5 May 1998, the US requested consulta tions with Ireland in 
respect of prohibited subsidies provided by Ire land.  The US alleged that, based on unofficial 
copies of the relevant legisla tion and descriptions in secondar y sources, it is its understanding 
that under Irish income tax law, "special trading houses" qualify for a spec ial tax rate in respect 
of trading income from the export sale of goods manufactured in Irela nd.  The US contended 
that this measure constitutes an export subsid y and as such violates Article 3 of the SCM 
Agreement. 
 16. WT/DS129 – Greece – Certain Income Tax Measures Constituting Subsidies 
 Complaint by the Unit ed States.  On 5 May 1998, the US requested consulta tions with Greece 
in respect of prohibited subsidies provided by Gr eece.  The US alleged that, based on unofficial 
English translations of relevant  legislation and descriptions 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 pe rcentage of export income. The US contended that this measure 
constitutes an export subsidy and as such vi olates 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 legislati on and descriptions in 
secondary sources, it is its understanding that under Dutch inco me tax law, exporters may 
establish a special "export reserve" for income derived from export sales.  The US contended 
that this measure constitutes an export subsid y and as such violates Article 3 of the SCM 
Agreement. WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 36  
 
  
18. WT/DS127 – Belgium – Certain Income Tax Measures Constituting Subsidies 
 Complaint by the United  States.  On 5 May 1998, the US requ ested consultations with Belgium  
in respect of prohibited subsidies provided by  Belgium.  The US alleged that, based on 
unofficial English translations of relevant legislation a nd descriptions in sec ondary sources, it is 
its understanding that under Belgium income ta x law, Belgian corporate taxpayers receive a 
special BEF 400,000 (index linked) tax exemptio n 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. 
 19. WT/DS123 – Argentina – Safeguard Me asures on Imports of Footwear 
 Complaint by Indonesia.  On 23 April 1998, I ndonesia requested consul tations with Argentina 
in respect of the same provisional and defin itive safeguard measures imposed by Argentina in 
the dispute WT/DS121.  On 15 Apr il 1999, Indonesia requested the establishment of a panel.  In 
a communication dated 10 May 1999, Indonesia info rmed 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 March 1998, the EC re quested consultations 
with India in respect of Indi a's EXIM Policy (1997-2002), 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 whic h requires an export licence, and that these 
licences are systematically refused.  The EC contended that this is in effect an export embargo and violates Arti cle XI of GATT 1994. On 12 October 2000, the EC requested the 
establishment of a panel. At its meeti ng of 23 October 2000, the DSB deferred the 
establishment of a panel. 
 
21. WT/DS118 – United States – Harbour Maintenance Tax 
 Complaint by the European Co mmunities.  On 6 February 1998, the EC requested consultations 
with the US concerning the US Harbour Main tenance Tax (HMT), allegedly introduced by 
legislation in the US.  The EC contended that the HMT violates Articles I, II, III, VIII and X of 
GATT 1994, as well as the Understanding on the Interpretation of Article II:1(B) of GATT 
1994. 
 
22. WT/DS117 – Canada – Measures Affe cting Film Distribution Services 
 Complaint by the European Co mmunities.  On 20 January 1998, th e EC requested consultations 
with Canada in respect of Ca nada's alleged measures affec ting film distribution services, 
including the 1987 Policy Decision on film dist ribution and its application 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 Co mmunities. On 9 January 1998, th e EC requested consultations 
with Brazil in respect of meas ures affecting paymen t terms for imports allegedly introduced by 
the Central Bank of Brazil.  The EC contended th at these measures violat e Articles 3 and 5 of 
the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures. 
  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 37 
 
 
 I. YEAR  1997 
1. WT/DS112 – Peru – Countervailing Duty Invest igation against Imports of Buses from 
Brazil 
 Complaint by Brazil.  On 23 December 1997, Braz il requested consulta tions with Peru in 
respect of a countervailing duty investigation bei ng carried out by Peru ag ainst imports of buses 
from Brazil.  Brazil contended th at the procedures followed by the Peruvian authorities to 
initiate this investigation are inconsistent with Articles 11 and 13.1 of the Subsidies Agreement. 
 
2. WT/DS111 – United States – Tariff Rate Quota for Imports of Groundnuts 
 Complaint by Arge ntina.  On 19 December 1997, Argentin a requested consultations with the 
US in respect of the alleged commercial detriment to Argentina resulting from a restrictive 
interpretation by the US of the tariff rate quota negotiated by the two countries during the 
Uruguay Round, regarding the importation of groundnuts.  Argentina alleged violations 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 Orig in, and Article 1 of the Import Licensing 
Agreement.  Nullification and impairme nt of benefits is also alleged. 
 
3. WT/DS109 – Chile – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages 
 Complaint by the United States.  On 11 Decem ber 1997, the US requested consultations with 
Chile in respect of Chile's internal taxes on alcoholic beverages, wh ich allegedly impose a 
higher tax on imported spirits than on pisco , a locally brewed spirit.  The US contended that this 
differential treatm ent of imported spirits violates Artic le 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 November 1997, the EC requested 
consultations with Pakistan in respect of a Notif ication enacted by the Ministry of Commerce of 
Pakistan prohibiting the export of, inter alia , hides and skins and wet blue leather made 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-finish ed materials.  
 5. WT/DS105 – European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and 
Distribution of Bananas 
 Complaint by Panama.  On 24 October 1997, Pana ma requested consultations with the EC in 
respect of the EC's regime for the importation, sale and distribution of bananas as established 
through Regulation 404/93, as well as any subsequent legislation,  regulations or administrative 
measures adopted by the EC, including those re flecting the Framework Agreement on Bananas.  
Panama did not specify the WTO provisions which the EC regime violates.  This is the same 
regime that was the s ubject of a successful challenge by the US, Ecuador, 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 Octobe r 1997, the US requested consultations with the 
EC in respect of export subsid ies allegedly granted by the EC  on processed cheese without WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 38  
 
 regard to the export subsidy re duction commitments of the EC.  The US contended that these 
measures by the EC distort markets for dairy pr oducts and adversely affect US sales of dairy 
products.  The US alleged violations of Ar ticles 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture, and Article 3 of  the Subsidies Agreement. 
 7. WT/DS100 – United States – Measures Affecting Imports of Poultry Products 
 Complaint by the European Co mmunities.  On 18 August 1997, th e 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 Insp ection Service, and any related measures.  The 
EC contended that although the ban is allegedly on grounds of pr oduct safety, the ban does not 
indicate the grounds upon which EC poultry products have sudde nly become ineligible for entry 
into the US market.  The EC considered that the ban is inconsistent with Articles I, III, X and XI of GATT 1994, Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and Anne x C of the SPS Agreement, 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 A ugust 1997, Chile requested consultatio ns 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 in jury, in violation of Arti cle 11.2 and 11.3.  Chile 
also contended a violation of Arti cle 11.4, in relation to the repres entative status of producers of 
salmon fillets. 
 
9. WT/DS81 – Brazil – Measures Affecting Trade and Investment in the Automotive 
Sector 
 Complaint by the European Communities.  On 7 May 1997, th e EC requested consultations 
with Brazil in respect of certain measures in the trade and investment 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 th ese measures violate 
Articles I:1 and III:4 of GATT 1994, Articles 3,  5 and 27.4 of the Subsidies Agreement, and 
Article 2 of the TRIMs Agreement.  The EC al so claimed for nullifica tion and impairment of 
benefits under both GATT 1994 and the Subsidies Agreement.  See also WT/DS51, 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 re quested consultations with Belgium 
in respect of certain measur es of the Kingdom of Belgium governing the provision of 
commercial telephone dire ctory services.  These measures in clude the imposition of conditions 
for obtaining a license to publish commercial direct ories, 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 we ll as nullification and 
impairment of benefits  accruing to it under the specific GATS commitments made by the EC on 
behalf of Belgium. 
  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 39 
 
 
 11. WT/DS78 – United States – Safeguard Me asure Against Imports of Broom Corn 
Brooms 
 Complaint by Colombia.  On 28 April 1997, Colo mbia requested consultations with the US in 
respect of US Presidential Proclamation 6961 of 28 November 1996, adopting a safeguard 
measure against imports of broo m and corn brooms.  Colombia contended that the adoption of 
this safeguard measure is inconsistent with the obl igations of the US under Articles 2, 4, 5, 9 
and 12 of the Agreement on Safe guards, Articles II, XIII and XIX of GATT 1994.  Colombia 
also claimed for nullifica tion 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 reques ted 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 contended 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. 
 
13. WT/DS66 – Japan – Measures Affecting Imports of Pork 
 Complaint by the European Co mmunities.  On 15 January 1997, th e EC requested consultations 
with Japan in respect of certain measures affe cting imports of pork and its processed products 
imposed by Japan. The EC conte nded that these measures are in violation of Japan's obligations 
under Articles I, X:3 and XIII of  the GATT 1994.  The EC also contended that these measures 
nullify or impair benefits accrui ng 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 Janu ary 1997, the US requested consultations with 
Brazil concerning more or less th e same measures as in WT/DS 52 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 conferring benefits to certain 
companies located in Japan, the Republic of Ko rea, and the EC.  The US alleged violations 
under Articles I:1 and III:4 of GATT 1994, Arti cle 2 of the TRIMs Agr eement, and Articles 3 
and 27.4 of the SCM Agreement. The United States  also made a nullification and impairment of 
benefits claim unde r Article XXIII:1(b) of GATT 1994. 
 J. 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-D umping 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 an d 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 Octobe r 1996, the Philippines requested consultations 
with the US in respect of a complaint by the Philippines regarding a ban on the importation of 
certain shrimp and shrimp products from the Ph ilippines imposed by the US under Section 609 WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 40  
 
 of US Public Law 101-62.  Violations of Articl es 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 
GATT 1994 is also allege d.  (See WT/DS58). 
 
3. WT/DS53 – Mexico – Customs Valuation of Imports 
 Complaint by the European Co mmunities.  On 27 August 1996, th e 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 impor ts originating in non-NAFTA countries, while it 
applies FOB value for imports originating in NAFTA countries.  Violation 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 re quested consultations with Brazil 
concerning the same measures as identified in Ja pan'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 27.4 are alleged.  In addition, th e United States also ma de 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 wi th Brazil concerning 
certain automotive investment meas ures 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, Th ailand requested consul tations with Turkey 
concerning Turkey's imposition of quantitative re strictions 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 al leged.  Earlier, Hong Kong (W T/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 La rge-Scale Retail Store Law, which regulates 
the floor space, business hours and holidays of su permarkets and 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 consultati ons 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 199 6, the US requested consultations with Korea 
concerning testing, inspection and other measur es required for the importation of agricultural 
products into Korea.  The US claimed that th ese measures restrict imports and appear to be  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 41 
 
 
 inconsistent with the WTO Agreement.  Viol ations of GATT Articles III and XI, SPS Articles 
2, 5 and 8, TBT Articles 2, 5 and 6, and Ar ticle  4 of the Agreement on Agriculture 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 cons ultations with Brazil 
concerning Brazil's imposition of countervailing duties on Sri Lanka's export of desiccated 
coconut and coconut milk powder.  Sri Lanka alleged that those me asures 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, Hong Kong requested consultations with 
Turkey concerning Turkey's quantitative restrictions on imports of textile and clothing products.  
Hong Kong claimed that those measures are in vi olation of GATT Articles XI and XIII.  The 
background to this dispute is a recently conc luded customs union agreement between Turkey 
and the European Communities.  Hong Kong clai med that GATT Article XXIV does not entitle 
Turkey to impose new quantitative restrictions in the present case.   
 
K. YEAR
 1995 
1. WT/DS16 – European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and 
Distribution of Bananas 
Complaint by Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico a nd the United States.  On 28 September 1995, 
Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and the United States requested consultations with the 
European Communities concerning the EC regime for the importation, sale and distribution of 
bananas.  The EC measures are alleged to be inc onsistent with Articles I, II, III, X and XIII of 
GATT 1994, Articles 1 and 3 of the Import Lice nsing 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 October 1995, Colombia and the Dominican 
Republic requested to join the consultations.  On 13 October 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 requ ested consultati ons with Korea 
involving testing and inspection re quirements with respect to im ports of agricultural products 
into Korea.  The measures are alleged to be in violation of GATT Articles III or XI, Articles 2 and 5 of the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytos anitary Measures (SPS), TBT Articles 5 and 6 
and Agriculture Article 4.  (See WT/DS41). 
 WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 42  
 
 II. PANELS ESTABLISHED BY DSB/REPORTS NOT YET CIRCULATED 
(in descending order, by DS number) 
A. ORIGINAL
 PANELS 
1. WT/DS323 – Japan – Import Quotas on Dried Laver and Seasoned Laver 
Complaint by Korea.  On 1 December 2004, Korea requested consultations with Japan 
concerning Japan's import quotas on dried laver a nd seasoned laver. According to the request 
for consultations, Korea believ es that Japan's extremely restrictive import quotas on dried 
laver and seasoned laver are inconsistent with, inter alia ,: 
– Articles X.3 and XI of the GATT 1994; 
– Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture; and  
– Article 1.2 and 1.6 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures.  
 On 4 February 2005, Korea requested the es tablishment of a panel. At its meeting on 
17 February 2005, the DSB deferred the establishm ent of a panel. At its meeting on 21 March 
2005, the DSB established the panel. China, th e European Communities and the United States 
reserved their third-party rights. 
  
2. WT/DS322 – United States – Measures Relating to Zeroing and Sunset Reviews  
Complaint by Japan.  On 24 November 2004, Jap an requested 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 presumption" in sunset reviews; and (3) the waiver provisions of US law, which, in sunset reviews, oblige the 
USDOC, in certain situations, to find a likeli hood of continuation or recurrence of dumping 
without performing a substantive review. 
 
According to the request for consultations fro m Japan, 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. section 351, in particular sections 
351.218 and 351.414; 
 
 – the Import Administration Antidumping Ma nual, 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;  
  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 43 
 
 
 – 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 injury within a 
reasonably foreseeable time.  
 Japan wishes to consult with the United Stat es 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.  
On 3 December 2004, India requested to join  the consultations.  On 8 Dececember 2004, 
Norway, Argentina, Chinese Taipei, the European  Communities and Mexico requested to join 
the consultations.    On 4 February 2005, Korea requested the es tablishment of a panel. At its meeting on 
17 February 2005, the DSB deferred the esta blishment of a panel. At its meeting on 
28 February 2005, the DSB established the pa nel. China, the European Communities, 
Hong Kong, India, Korea and Mexico reserved their third-party rights.  
3. WT/DS321 – Canada – Continued Suspension of Obligations in the EC – Hormones 
Dispute 
Complaint by the European Co mmunities.  On 8 November 2004,  the European Communities 
filed a request for consultations with Canada  asserting that Canada should have removed its 
retaliatory measures since the EC has removed the measures found to be WTO-inconsistent in 
the EC – Hormones  case .   
 The issues which the EC intends to raise in th e consultations include, but are not limited to: 
 
• the failure by Canada to remove the retalia tory measures despite the EC's removal of 
the WTO-inconsistent measures: 
 
• the unilateral determinations by Canada th at the new EC legislation is a continued 
WTO violation; and 
 
• the failure of Canada to follow DSU Artic le 21.5 dispute settlement procedures to 
adjudicate the matter. 
 
 The EC considers that the continued use by Cana da 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. 
 
On 19 Australia, Mexico and the United 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.    WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 44  
 
 On 13 January 2005, the European Communities re quested the establishment of a panel. At its 
meeting on 25 January 2005, the DSB deferred th e establishment of a panel.  At its meeting 
on 17 February 2005, the DSB established a pane l.  Australia, China, Mexico, Chinese Taipei 
and the United States reserved their third-party rights. 
 
4. WT/DS320 – United States – Continued Suspension of Obligations in the EC – 
Hormones Disputes 
Complaint by the European Co mmunities.  On 8 November 2004,  the European Communities 
filed a request for consultations with the Un ited States asserting that the United States should 
have removed its retaliatory measures since the EC has removed the measures found to be 
WTO-inconsistent in the EC – Hormones  case .   
 The issues which the EC intends to raise in th e consultations include, but are not limited to: 
 
• the failure by the United States to remove the retaliatory measures despite the EC's 
removal of the WTO-inconsistent measures: 
 
• the unilateral determinations by the United States that the new EC legislation is a 
continued WTO violation; and 
 
• the failure of the United States to fo llow DSU Article 21.5 dispute settlement 
procedures to adjudicate the matter. 
 
 The EC considers that the continued use by th e United States and of retaliatory measures in 
this case, in the current circumstances, are vi olations 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. 
 On 17 November 2004, Canada requested to jo in the consultations. On 19 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 deferr ed the establishment of a panel.  At its 
meeting on 17 February 2005, the DSB establishe d a panel.  Australia, Canada, China, 
Mexico and Chinese Taipei reserved their third-party rights. 
 
5. 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 concerning the Communities' administration of 
laws and regulations pertaining to the classifi cation 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 consultati ons from the United States, the non-uniform 
administration by the European Communities of  laws, regulations, judicial decisions and 
administrative rulings pertaining to the classifi cation and valuation of products for customs 
purposes and to requirements, restrictions or prohibitions on imports results in disparate 
administration among the member States of th ese customs measures in a number of respects, 
including differences in the classification and valuation of goods.    WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 45 
 
 
 Furthermore, the United States claims that EC law provides that EC member States are 
responsible for the implementation of appeals proce dures. It is claimed, therefore, that appeals 
procedures vary from member State to member State, and the ability to obtain review of a customs decision by a tribunal of the Eur opean Communities is possible only after an 
importer or other interested party has exhaus ted 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 requested to join the consultations.  On 
7 October 2004, Argentina, Chinese Taipei and Indi a requested to join the consultations.  On 
13 January 2005, the United States requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 25 January 2005, the DSB deferred the establishmen t of a panel. At its meeting on 21 March 
2005, the DSB established the panel. Australia, Br azil, China, Chinese Taipei and Hong Kong 
reserved their third-party rights.  
6. WT/DS312 – Korea – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Certain Paper from 
Indonesia 
Complaint by Indonesia.  On 4 June 2004, In donesia requested consultations with Korea 
concerning the imposition of defi nitive anti-dumping duties by Korea on imports of business 
information paper and uncoated wood-free prin ting paper from Indonesia and certain aspects 
of the investigation leading to the imposition of such duties.  According to the request for consultati ons from Indonesia, Korea violates its WTO 
obligations in respect of the following aspects: 
 
• Korea's initiation of investigation, notwithstanding several deficiencies such as the 
applicants' failure to includ e in the application sufficien t and adequate evidence of 
dumping, injury and causal link; 
 
• Korea's failure to provide in the Notice of Initiation any information regarding the 
factors on which the allegation of injury was based,. 
 
• the way Korea granted confidential treatme nt 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 and 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 su ch respects as: like products, constructed 
value, best information available, denial of access to information, and the refusal to 
provide an opportunity to the exporters to present their views; 
 
• Korea's final determination, in such re spects as: like products, individual dumping 
margins, constructed value, treating a certain firm and other firms as a single WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 46  
 
 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 are 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, and 7 of Annex II of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement.  
On 16 August 2004, Indonesia requested the establishment 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 Europ ean 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. 
 
7. 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 im posed by Mexico on soft drinks and other 
beverages that use any sweetener other than cane sugar.  
  The tax measures concerned include: (i) a 20 per cent tax on soft drinks and other beverages 
that use any sweetener other than cane sugar ("beverage tax"), whic h is not applied to 
beverages that use cane sugar;  and (ii) a 20 percent tax on the commissioning, mediation, 
agency, representation, brokerage, consignment and distribution of soft drinks and other 
beverages that use any sweetener other th an 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 establishment 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 reserved their third-
party rights.  On 15 July 2004, Guatemala r eserved its third-party right. On 20 August 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 parties  
 8. WT/DS301 – European Communities – Measures Affecting Commercial Vessels 
 Complaint by Korea.  On 3 September 2003, Korea requested consultations with the 
European Communities concerning certain measures by the EC and its member States in  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 47 
 
 
 favour of their shipbuilding industry which, accord ing to Korea, are inconsistent with their 
WTO obligations.  These measures are as follows:  
 
• EC Regulation 1177/2002 ("TDM Regulation" ) and 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 granted on a contractual basis in forms such as grants, export credits, guarantees or tax breaks, (b) 
restructuring aid, (c) regional or other i nvestment aid, (d) research and development 
aid, (e) environmental protection aid and (f) insolvency and closure aid. 
 
 Korea considered that these measures 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 that 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 subs idies of another Member".  This may refer 
to the ongoing dispute concerning Korea's own subsidies, on which a panel was established in 
July 2003 (WT/DS273).  
  Korea also considered that the above-described measures nullify or impair benefits accruing 
to Korea under the WTO Agreements, within th e 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 requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 
17 February 2004, the DSB deferred the establishm ent of a panel. Further to a second request 
to establish a panel by Korea, the DSB establis hed a panel at its m eeting on 19 March 2004.  
China, Japan and the United States r eserved 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 th at the Panel hoped to complete its work by 
the end of February 2005.  
 
9. WT/DS299 – European Communities – Co untervailing Measures on Dynamic Random 
Access Memory Chips from Korea 
 Complaint by Korea.  On 25 July 2003, Kor ea requested consultations with the European 
Communities concerning the EC's provisi onal countervailing measu res and any final WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 48  
 
 countervailing measures which may be finalized and implemented later this year against 
dynamic random access memory chips ("DRAMs") from Korea.  
  According to Korea, when considering the de terminations with respect to the provisional 
measures against the DRAMs from Korea, which have already been implemented, and any 
final measures on the same products, which may be  finalized and implemen ted later this year, 
the European Commission failed to comply w ith various WTO substantive and procedural 
requirements, including demonstration of  the existence of a financial contribution and a 
benefit conferred, and demonstration of  specificity of the subsidies concerned.    
 
 In Korea's view, these EC's measures at issue ar e inconsistent with the EC's obligations under 
the following WTO provisions: 
  (a) Articles VI:3 and X.3 of GATT 1994;  
 (b) 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 cons ultations with the EC concerning the EC's 
final countervailing measures, which were a dopted by the European Council on 11 August 
2003 and published in the Official J ournal of the EC on 22 August 2003.  
 
 Korea wished to consult on the same issues rai sed in its previous consultations request, but 
from the additional perspectives of the adopted final measures.  
  Korea further elaborated the EC's violation of Article 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 estab lishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 
1 December 2003, the DSB deferred the establishm ent of a panel. Further to a second request 
to establish a panel by Korea, the DSB establishe d a panel at its meeting on 23 January 2004.  
China, Japan, Chinese Taipei and the United St ates 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.  
 10. WT/DS295 – Mexico – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Beef and Rice 
Complaint by the United States.  On 16 June 2003, the United States re quested consultations 
with Mexico concerning its definitive anti-dum ping measures on beef and long grain white 
rice as well as certain provisions of Mexico's Fo reign Trade Act and its Federal Code of Civil 
Procedure. 
 
 The US claimed that these me asures were inconsistent with Mexico's obligations under the 
provisions of GATT 1994, the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the SCM 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. 
  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 49 
 
 
  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 US also claimed that Mexico's measures a ppear to nullify or impair benefits accruing to 
the US directly or indirectly  under the cited agreements. 
 
On 19 September 2003, the US requested the esta blishment 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 the US, the DSB establishe d 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 in formed the DSB that it 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 in November 2004. On 26 November 2004, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that it e xpected to complete its work in March 2005.   
 11. 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 Stat es 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 case s involving 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 applied in calculating dumping margins, its 
impact on determinations of injury, its im pact 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 t hose specific cases, alleging that in each of them 
the US used zeroing methodology.  Most of th e products in these 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, met hodology and these specific determinations appear 
to be inconsistent with the United States' obligations under the following WTO provisions: 
  (a) Articles 1, 2.4, 3, 5.8, 9.3, 9.5, 11, 18.3 and 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement ; 
 (b) Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT 1994 ; 
 (c) 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. WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 50  
 
  
 On 8 September 2003, the European Communiti es requested further consultations with the 
United States.  The EC wished to add ten mo re cases to the list of specific cases.   
  The EC indicated specific aspects of th e zeroing methodology that it will raise in the 
additional consultations, including the way in  which it is applied 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 determ inations 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 estab lishment of a panel. On 16 February 2004, the 
EC submitted a revised request for the establishm ent of a panel. At its meeting on 17 February 
2004, the DSB deferred the establishment of a pa nel. At its meeting on 19 March 2004, the 
DSB established a panel. Argentina, Brazil, Ch ina, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Norway and 
Chinese Taipei reserved their third-party ri ghts. On 23 March 2004, Hong Kong reserved its 
third-party right. On 30 March 2004, Turkey reser ved its third-party right.  On 27 October 
2004, the Panel was composed. 
 
On 22 March 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 m onths in light of the schedule which had been 
agreed after consultations with the parties, and th at the Panel expected to complete its work in 
July 2005. 
 
12. WT/DS293, WT/DS292, WT/DS291 – Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing 
of Biotech Products 
Complaints by the United States (WT/DS291), Canada (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 th e EC and its member States affecting imports 
of agricultural and food imports from the Unite d States and Canada.  Regarding EC-level 
measures, the US and Canada asserted that the moratorium applied by the EC since October 1998 on the approval of biotech products has rest ricted imports of agricultural and food 
products 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 products even though those produc ts 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: 
 
 (a) Articles 2, 5, 7 and 8, and Annexes B and C of the SPS Agreement;    (b) Articles I, III, X and XI of the GATT 1994;    (c) Article 4 of the Agriculture Agreement;  and   (d) 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: 
  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 51 
 
 
  (a) Articles 2.2, 2.3, 5.1, 5.5, 5.6, 7 a nd 8, and Annexes B and C of the SPS Agreement; 
 (b) Articles 2.1, 2.2, 2.8, 5.1 and 5.2 of the TBT Agreement;    (c) Articles I:1, III:4, X:1 and XI:1 of the GATT 1994; and   (d) Article 4.2 of the Agriculture Agreement.     
 Canada also considered that the measures at  issue nullify or impair benefits accruing to 
Canada in the sense of Article XXIII:1(b) of the GATT 1994. 
  According to Argentina, the measures at issu e appear to be inconsistent with the EC's 
obligations under: 
 
 (a) Articles 2, 5, 7, 8 and 10, and Annexes B and C of the SPS Agreement;    (b) Article 4 of the Agriculture Agreement;    (c) Articles I, III, X and XI of the GATT 1994;  and   (d) Articles 2, 5 and 12 of the TBT Agreement. 
 
 In dispute WT/DS291, Australia, Argentina, Br azil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, India, Mexico, 
New Zealand and Peru requested to join the c onsultations,  The EC informed the DSB that 
they had accepted the requests of Australia, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, 
India, Mexico, New Zealand and Peru to join the consultations. 
 
 In dispute WT/DS292, Australia, Argentina, Brazil, India, Mexico, New Zealand and the 
United States requested to join  the consultations.  The EC in formed the DSB that they had 
accepted the requests of Australia, Argentina, Brazil, India, Mexico, New Zealand and the 
United States to join the consultations.  
 In dispute WT/DS293, Australia, Brazil, Cana da, India, Mexico, New Zealand and the United 
States requested to join the consultations.  Th e EC informed the DSB that they had accepted 
the requests of Australia, Brazil, Canada, India, Mexico, New Zealand and the United States to join the consultations. 
  On 7 August 2003, the United States, Canada and Argentina each requested the establishment 
of a panel. At its meeting on 18 August 2003,  the DSB deferred th e establishment of the 
panels.  Further to second requests to establish a panel from the US, Canada and Argentina, 
the DSB established a single panel at  its meeting on 29 August 2003.   
 
On 23 February 2004, the United States, Canada and Argentina requested the 
Director-General to compose the panel.  On  4 March 2004, the Director-General composed 
the panel. Argentina (in respect of the United States' and Canada's complaints), Australia, 
Brazil, Canada (in respect of the United Stat es' and Argentina's complaints), Chile, China, 
Colombia, El Salvador, Honduras, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, Chinese 
Taipei, Thailand, Uruguay and the United States (in respect of Canada's and Argentina's 
complaints) 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 20 04, the Chairman of the Panel informed the 
DSB that that the Panel estimated that it would issue its final report to the parties by the end of 
March 2005, and that  the delay was due to the parties' common request for additional time to 
prepare their rebuttals as well as the Panel's deci sion 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.    
 WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 52  
 
 13. WT/DS287 – Australia – Quarantine Regime for Imports 
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 3 April 2003, the EC requested consultations 
with Australia regarding the Australian quaran tine regime for imports, both as such and as 
applied to certain specific cases.  According to  the EC, the Australian quarantine regime for 
imports appears to be governed both by legisl ation as well as by the exercise of discretion 
granted to a Director of Quarantine and by ad ministrative guidance issued on the exercise of 
that discretion.    As regards the quarantine regime as such, the EC claims that the effect of this regime appears 
to be that the import of products is a priori  prohibited, although there is no risk assessment.  
Risk assessments appear to be  commenced, if at all, only once the import of a product has 
been specifically requested. 
  In some cases, no risk assessme nt has been commenced despite 
such request.  In other cases it has been commenc ed but not completed.  As regards specific 
cases, the EC claims that: 
 
• Australia permits the import of deboned pigmeat from Denmark for processing in 
Australia but refuses the import of processed deboned pigmeat from Denmark.  It also claims that the processing requirements im posed in Australia may be more trade-
restrictive than necessary in the circumstances to protect Australia from PRRS (Porcine 
Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome).  It al so appears that requests have been made 
for access to Australia for processed pigmeat or deboned pigmeat for processing from 
other EU Member States which have been refused. 
• Australia permits the import of poultry meat  which has been cooked to high temperature 
and for long periods to prevent the entry of IBD (infectious bursal disease).  The EC claims that it appears that IBD may already be present in the Australian poultry flock and that no efforts are being made to eradicate it.  The EC also claims that the processing 
requirements imposed in Australia may be mo re trade-restrictive than necessary in the 
circumstances to protect Australia from IBD. 
 
The EC considers that the measures referred to above may be contrary to the SPS Agreement, 
and in particular, although not limited to, Articles 2.2,  2.3, 3.3, 4.1, 5.1, 5.6 and, if applicable, 
5.7, 8 and Annex C.  On 16 April 2003, Chile and the Philippines requested to join the consultations.  On 22 April 2003, India and Ca nada requested to join the consultations.  
Australia informed the DSB that it had accepted the requests of Canada, Chile, India and the 
Philippines to join the consultations.  
On 29 August 2003, the European Communities requ ested the establishment of a panel. At its 
meeting on 2 October 2003, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. On 14 October 
2003, the EC submitted a revised request for the establishment of a panel to the DSB. The 
DSB established a panel at its meeting on 7 N ovember 2003.  Canada, Chile, China, India, 
Philippines, Thailand and the United States reserved their third-party rights.  
 
14. WT/DS286 and WT/DS269 – European Communities – Customs Classification of 
Frozen Boneless Chicken Cuts 
Complaints by Brazil (WT/DS269) and Thaila nd (WT/DS286).  On 11 October 2002, Brazil 
requested consultations with the Europ ean Communities concerning 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.  Accord ing to Brazil, this new description includes a salt content to 
the product that did not exist before and subj ects the imports of these products to a higher  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 53 
 
 
 tariff than that applicable to salted meat (CN code 0210) in the EC's Schedules under the 
GATT 1994.    
 Brazil submits that Regulation No. 1223/2 002 automatically 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 €/100kg/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  that its commerce has been accorded treatment 
less favourable than that provided in the EC Sche dules, in contravention of the obligations of 
the EC under Articles II and XXVIII of the GATT 1 994.  In addition, Brazil claimed that the 
application of this measure by the EC nu llifies and impairs, within the meaning of 
Article XXIII:1, benefits accruing to Brazil di rectly or indirectly under the GATT 1994. 
 
 On 25 October 2002, the United States requested to join the consultations.  
On 25 March 2003, Thailand requested consu ltations with the EC on the same matter. 
According to Thailand, the measure at issue is inconsistent with the EC's obligations under 
Articles II:1(a) and II:1(b) of the GATT 1994 a nd its Schedule of Concessions.  On 3 and 
10 April 2003 respectively, Brazil and the United States requested to join the consultations.  
The EC informed the DSB that it had accepted the request of Brazil to join the consultations. 
 
On 19 September 2003, Brazil requested the establishment 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 establishe d a panel at its meeting on 7 November 2003.  
Chile, China, Thailand and the United States reserved their third-party rights. 
 
On 27 October 2003, Thailand requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 7 November 2003, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  On 21 November 2003, further to a second request by Thailand for th e establishment of a panel, the DSB established 
a single panel, pursuant to an agreement be tween the parties and in accordance with 
Article 9.1 of the DSU.  The Members which had reserved their third party rights in the panel 
established at the request of Brazil were also cons idered as third parties in the single panel.  In 
addition, Brazil, Columbia and Chile reserved thei r 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 the 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 that  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 six months due to th e complexity of the case and the sensitivity of the 
legal and factual questions that have been rais ed, and that the Panel hopeed to complete its 
work by the end of March 2005. 
 
15. WT/DS282 – United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods 
(OCTG) from Mexico 
Complaint by Mexico.  On 18 February 2003, Me xico 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 so me administrative and sunset reviews; and the WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 54  
 
 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 administrative practices (such as "zeroing") used by the US authorities in the above 
determinations.  Mexico considers that th e 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 pa nel.  Further to a second request to establish 
a panel by Mexico, the DSB established a panel at  its meeting on 29 August 2003.  Argentina, 
China, the EC, Japan, Chinese Ta ipei and Venezuela reserved their third-party rights.  On 
5 September 2003, Canada reser ved its third-party rights. 
 On 11 February 2004, the Panel was composed.   
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 schedule which was agreed after consultations 
with the parties, and that th e Panel expected to complete its work in March 2005. On 4 
February 2005, the Chairman of the Panel info rmed the DSB that it would not be able to 
complete its work by March 2005 in light of s ubsequent delays in the proceedings due to the 
complexity of certain issues, and that the Panel expected to complete its work in May 2005.  
 
 
16. WT/DS281 – United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Imports of Cement from 
Mexico 
Complaint by Mexico.  On 3 February 2003, Mexico requested consultations with the US 
concerning several antidumping measures imposed by the US on imports of Gray Portland 
cement and cement clinker from Mexico, including:  
 
• the final determinations in several administrative and sunset reviews; 
• the US authorities' determination regarding the continuation of the antidumping orders; 
and 
• the US authorities' rejection of a request by Mexican producers to initiate an 
administrative review based on changed circumstances as well as. 
 
In addition to the above measures, Mexico's request included a number of laws, regulations 
and administrative practices (such as "zeroing" ) used by the US authorities in the above 
determinations.  Mexico considered that th e above antidumping measures are incompatible 
with Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 18 of the Antidumping Agreement, Articles III, 
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 pane l.  Further to a second request to establish 
a panel by Mexico, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 29 August 2003.  China, the EC, Japan and Chinese Taipei reserved their thir d-party rights. On 5 September 2003, Canada 
reserved its third-party rights. 
 On 24 August 2004, Mexico requested the Direct or-General to compose the panel.  On 3 
September 2004, the Director-General composed the panel.   WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 55 
 
 
 On 1 March 2005, the Chairman of the Panel info rmed the DSB that it would not be able to 
complete its work in six months, inter alia  due to the large number of claims involved, the 
complexity of the issues and certain postponement s in the Panel's timetable and that the Panel 
hoped to complete its work by the end of October 2005 
 17. WT/DS280 – United States – Countervailing Duties on Imports of Steel Plate from 
Mexico 
Complaint by Mexico.  On 21 January 2003, Me xico requested consultations with the US 
regarding the final determination in an admini strative review 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 impor ts of the said products. 
 
Mexico claims that the administrative review  that 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, Mexico claims that the US 
Department of Commerce did not make a dete rmination of the existence of a benefit as 
required in Article 1.1(b) of the SCM Agreement.  On 4 August 2003, Mexico requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 18 August 2003, the DSB deferred the establishmen t of a panel.  Further to a second request 
to establish a panel by Mexico, the DSB establishe d a panel at its meeti ng on 29 August 2003.  
China, the EC and Chinese Taipei reserved th eir third-party rights.  On 5 September 2003, 
Canada reserved its third-party rights. 
 
18. WT/DS270 – Australia – Certain Measures Aff ecting the Importation of Fresh Fruit and 
Vegetables 
 Complaint by the Philippines.  On 18 Octobe r 2002, the Philippines requested consultations 
with Australia on certain measures affecting th e importation 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 measur es are inconsistent with the obligations of 
Australia under the GATT 1994, the SPS Agreem ent and the Agreement on Import Licensing 
Procedures.  The relevant provisions of these agreements 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. 
  On 1 November 2002, the EC and Thailand re quested to join the consultations.  On 
7 November 2002, Australia informed the DSB th at it had accepted the request of the EC and 
Thailand to join the consultations.   
  On 7 July 2003, the Philippines requested 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 WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 56  
 
 establish a panel by the Philippines, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 29 August 
2003.  China, the EC, Ecuador, India, Thailand an d the US reserved their third-party rights.  
On 4 September 2003, Chile reserved its third-party rights. 
 
19. 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 imports 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 ame ndments thereto or extensions 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 Agreement on Safeguards, in particular, 
Articles 2.1, 2.2, 3, 4.1, 4.2, 6 and 12.1 of the Agreement on Safeguard s 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 in consistent with the 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 defe rred the establishment of a panel.  At its 
meeting on 16 September 2002, the DSB estab lished a panel.  Egypt, Japan and Korea 
reserved their third party rights.  On 23 Sept ember 2002, Turkey reserved its third party 
rights. 
 20. WT/DS214 – United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Steel Wire 
Rod and Circular Welded Carbon 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 impos ed by the US on imports of certain steel 
wire rod ("wire rod") and certain circular weld ed 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 Articl es 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 respect the requirement of parallelism 
between the imported products subject to the investigation 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.  
 
According to the EC, these violations are conf irmed by the application of the aforesaid US 
provisions in two specific cases where the US im posed definitive safeguard measures, (1) in  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 57 
 
 
 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 lin e 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 the 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 Safeguards Agreement; Articles 4.1 a nd 4.2 Safeguards Agreement; Article 5.1 
Safeguards Agreement; Article 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 estab lished a panel at its me eting of 10 September 
2001.  Argentina, Canada, Japan, Korea and Mexi co reserved their third-party rights.  The 
Panel has not yet been composed. 
 
21. WT/DS195 – Philippines – Measures Affecting Trade and Investment in the Motor 
Vehicle Sector 
Complaint by the United States. On 23 May 2000 , the US requested consultations with the 
Philippines in respect of certain measures in  the Philippines' Motor Vehicle Development 
Program ("MVDP"), including the Car Deve lopment Program, the Commercial Vehicle 
Development Program, and the Motorcycle Development Program.  The United States asserted that:  
• the MVDP provided that motor vehicle ma nufacturers 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 th at manufacturers use parts and components 
produced in the Philippines and that they ear n a percentage of the foreign exchange 
needed to import those parts and componen ts by exporting finished vehicles; and 
• The United States considered that these measures are 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 estab lishment 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 meeting of 17 November 2000. 
India and Japan reserved their third party right s.  This panel has not yet been composed. 
 
22. WT/DS188 – Nicaragua – Measures Affecting Imports from Honduras and Colombia (I) 
 Complaint by Colombia.  On 17 January 2 000, Colombia requested consultations with 
Nicaragua  in respect of Nicaragua's Law 325 of 1999, which provides 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, H onduras and the US reserved their third-party 
rights.  This panel has not yet been composed. 
 WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 58  
 
 23. WT/DS164 – Argentina – Measures Affecting Imports of Footwear 
Complaint by the United States.  On 1 March 1999, the 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 Reso lution 1506 modifying Resolution 987 of 10 
September 1997, which had established safegua rd duties on imports of footwear from 
non-MERCOSUR countries.  Resolution 1506 allegedly imposes a tariff-rate quota (TRQ) on such footwear imports in addition to the safeguard 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 co mposed.  See also complaint by Indonesia 
(WT/DS123) and complaint by the EC (WT/DS121). 
 
B. A
CTIVE COMPLIANCE PANELS  
1. WT/DS277 – United States – Investigation of the International Trade Commission in 
Softwood Lumber Canada 
Complaint by Canada. Considering that the measu res allegedly taken by the United States to 
comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulin gs were inconsistent with US obligations 
under relevant WTO Agreements, on 14 February  2004 Canada requested the DSB of the 
establishment of a panel under Article 21.5 of the DSU.   On 23 February 2005, Canada and the Unite d States sent to the DSB the understanding 
between the parties regarding procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU, which 
provides that Article 22.6 arbitration be suspended until adoption by the DSB of the 
recommendations and rulings in the Arti cle 21.5 compliance proceedings.     
 At its meeting of 25 February 2005 the DSB deci ded to refer the matter raised by Canada to 
the original panel.  China and the European Co mmunities reserved their third party rights. On 
2 March 2005. the Panel was composed.  
 
2. WT/DS257 – United States – Final Countervailing Duty Determination with respect to 
Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada 
Complaint by Canada. Considering that the measu res allegedly taken by the United States to 
comply with the DSB's recommendations and ruli ngs were inconsistent with US obligations 
under relevant WTO Agreements, on 30 December  2004 Canada requested the DSB of the 
establishment of a panel under Article 21.5 of the DSU.  
  Canada considers that the measures allegedly taken by the United States to comply with the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings were inconsis tent with US obligations under Articles 10 
and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement  and Article VI:3 of the GATT 1994:   
 On 14 January 2005, Canada and the United States sent to the DSB the understanding 
between the parties regarding procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU, which  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 59 
 
 
 provides that Article 22.6 arbitration be suspended until adoption by the DSB of the 
recommendations and rulings in the Article 21.5 compliance proceedings. 
 At its meeting of 14 January 2005 the DSB decide d to refer the matter raised by Canada to the 
original panel. China and the European Co mmunities reserved their third party rights.  
 
3. WT/DS245 – Japan – Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples 
 Complaint by the United States.  On 30 June 2004, Japan and the United States sent to the 
DSB the confirmed procedures between the parties under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU.  
 
Considering that Japan had failed to impl ement the DSB's recommendations and rulings 
before the expiration of the reasonable period of time, on 19 July 2004 the United States requested the DSB of the establishment of a panel under Article 21.5 of the DSU.  
 The United States considers that Japan's phyt osanitary measures on imported US apples are  
inconsistent with its obligations under the SPS Agreement, the GATT 1994, and the 
Agreement on Agriculture.  The provisions of these agreements with which Japan's measures 
appear to be inconsistent include:  
 1. Articles 2.2, 2.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.5, 5.6, 6.1 and 6.2 of the Agreement on the 
Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures ; 
 
 2. Article XI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ;  and 
 
 3. Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture . 
 
At its meeting on 30 July 2004 the DSB decided to refer the matter raised by the United States 
to the original panel. Australia, Brazil, Chin a, the European Communities, New Zealand and 
Chinese Taipei reserved their third party rights. 
 
 On 29 October 2004, the Panel under DSU Article 21.5 informed the DSB that due in 
particular to the need to consult scientific e xperts the Panel was not able to issue its report 
within 90 days, and that the Panel expected to  circulate its final report to Members during the 
second half of the month of May 2005. 
 
4. WT/DS212 – United States – Countervailin g Measures concerning Certain Products 
from the European Communities 
 Complaint by the European Communities. On 17 March 2004, the EC, considering that the 
measures taken by the US to comply with its WTO obligations were unsatisfactory, requested 
the US to enter into consultations under Article s 4 and 21.5 of the DSU and Article 30 of the 
SCM Agreement. On 16 September 2004, pursuant to Articles 6 and 21.5 of the DSU, Article 
30 of the SCM Agreement and Article XXIII of GATT 1994, the EC requested that the panel 
be established, as it disagrees with the US as to  the existence or consistency with a covered 
agreement of measures taken to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.  
 In particular, the EC claims and requests the Panel to find the following:  1. That in the sunset review  Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products 
from France  (C-427-810) (Case No. 9), the United States failed to properly examine the 
existence, continuation or likelihood of recurrence of subsidization.  In particular, with regard 
to the privatization concerned, it improperly analysed whether the price for employees and WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 60  
 
 retirees' shares constituted a subsidy or that it led to any continuation of a countervailable 
subsidy.  This is inconsistent with Articles 10, 14, 19.4, 21.1and 21.3 of the SCM Agreement 
and Article VI: 3 of GATT 1994.  2. That in the following sunset reviews:  
• Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from United Kingdom  (C–412–815) (Case No. 8); 
 
• Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Spain  (C–469–804) (Case No. 11), 
 The EC considers that the United States failed to properly determine whether, in these cases, 
there was continuation or recurrence of subsid ization and injury, because it did not examine 
the nature of the privatizations in question a nd their impact on the continuation of the alleged 
subsidization.  This is inc onsistent with Articles 10, 14, 19.4, 21.1, and 21.3 of the SCM 
Agreement and Article VI:3 of GATT 1994, according to the EC. 
 At its meeting of 27 September 2004, the DSB est ablished the panel. Brazil, Korea and China 
reserved their rights as third parties. On 8 Oc tober 2004, the Panel was composed.      
 
On 4 January 2005, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that the Panel expected to complete its work in May 2005.  
 
5. WT/DS108 – United States – Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations"  
Complaint by the European Co mmunities. On 5 November 2004, the EC requested the US to 
enter into consultations under Articles 4 and 21.5 of the DSU, Article 4 of the SCM Agreement , 
Article 19 of the Agreement on Agriculture and Article XXII:1 of GATT 1994 with respect to 
the American JOBS Creation Act of 2004  (the "JOBS Act") enacted by the US on 22 October 
2004. According to the EC, the JOBS Act was intended to implement the DSB recommendations and rulings in this case (compliance phase) but failed to do so properly and 
was inconsistent with the same provisions of the WTO Agreement  as did the predecessor 
legislation. In particular, the European Communities considers that Section 101 of the JOBS 
Act contains transitional provisions which will a llow US exporters to continue to benefit from 
the WTO incompatible FSC Replacement and Extrat erritorial Income Exclusion Act (a) in the 
years 2005 and 2006 with respect to all export transactions and (b) for an indefinite period 
with respect to certain binding contracts, thus  failing to withdraw the subsidy and implement 
the DSB's recommendations and rulings.   
On 17 November 2004, Australia reques ted to join the consultations.  
 On 13 January 2005, the EC notified the DSB that consultations had failed to settle the dispute 
and that it was requesting the es tablishment of a panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. At 
its meeting of 25 January 2005, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting 
of 17 February 2005, the DSB agreed to refer the matter to the original panel.   
 
III. REPORTS CIRCULATED BUT NOT YET ADOPTED BY THE DSB 
A. ORIGINAL
 PANEL  REPORTS 
1. WT/DS290, WT/DS174 – 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).  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 61 
 
 
 On 1 June 1999, the US requested consultations w ith the EC in respect of  the alleged lack of 
protection of trademarks and geographical i ndications (GIs) for agricultural 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 obligations 
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 requ est for consultations concerning the protection 
of trademarks and GIs for agricultural products and foodstuffs 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 implementing a nd 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 
protections provided under the Regulation.  The US  claims that the EC Regulation appears to 
be inconsistent 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 protec tion of geographical indications for foodstuffs 
and agricultural products in the EC.  The measu res 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 related measures ("the EC measure").   
  According to Australia: 
 
• the EC measure seems not to accord immedi ately and unconditionally to the nationals 
and/or products of each WTO Member any a dvantage, favour, privilege of immunity 
granted to the nationals and/or like products of any other WTO Member, 
• the EC measure seems not to accord to th e nationals and/or products of each WTO 
Member treatment no less favourable than th at 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-restric tive than necessary to fulfil a legitimate 
objective, taking account of the risks non-fulfilment would create.  
 
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 and 65 of the TRIPS Agreement, Articles I and III of GATT 1994, Article 2 of the TBT Agreement and 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 Sl ovak Republic and Turkey requested to join WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 62  
 
 the additional consultations. The EC informed  the DSB that it had accepted the requests of 
Argentina, Australia, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Cz ech Republic, Hungary, India, Malta, Mexico, 
New Zealand, Romania, the Slovak Republic, Sl ovenia, 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 requ ested to join the consultations.  The EC 
informed the DSB that it has accepted the request s of Argentina, Bulgaria, Colombia, Cyprus, 
the Czech Republic, Hungary, Malta, Mexico, Ne w 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  requested 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 pane l from the US and Australia, the DSB 
established a single panel at its meeting on 2 October 2003. Australia, Colombia, Guatemala, 
India, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Chinese Ta ipei  and Turkey reserved their third-party 
rights. On 6 October, China reserved its thir d-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 Au stralia 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 in formed the DSB that it would not be able to 
complete its work in six months due to the co mplexity 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 report was circulated to Members.  
• the Panel agreed with the United States a nd Australia that the EC's GI Regulation 
does not provide national treatment to other WTO Members' right holders and products, because: (i) registration of a GI from a country outside the European Union 
is contingent upon the government of that c ountry 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 app lications and objections from other WTO 
Members to be examined and transmitted by  the governments of those Members, and 
require those 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 in consistent 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 Un ited States and Australia that the TRIPS 
Agreement does not allow unqualified coexis tence of GIs with prior trademarks. 
  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 63 
 
 
 2. WT/DS273 – Korea – Measures Affectin g Trade in Commercial Vessels 
Complaint by the European Communities.  On  21 October 2002, the European Communities 
requested consultations with Korea on  certain measures establishing subsidies to its 
shipbuilding industry which, according to the Eu ropean Communities, are inconsistent with 
Korea's obligations under the SCM Agreem ent.  These measures are as follows:  
• Corporate restructuring subsidies in the form of  debt forgiveness, debt and interest relief 
and debt-to-equity swaps, provided th rough government-owned and government-
controlled banks;  
• Special taxation on in-kind contribution and the special taxation on spin-off scheme 
provided in the Special Tax Treatment Control Law which establishes two tax 
programmes limited to companies under co rporate restructuring and provided tax 
concessions to Daewoo;  
• Pre-shipment loans and advance payment refund guarantees provided by the state-owned 
Export-Import Bank of Korea ("KEXIM") to all Korean shipyards. 
The EC indicated that the subsidies in question were granted with respect to the production of 
commercial vessels for international commerce, in cluding: 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 necessarily 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 pane l.  Further to a second request by the EC, 
the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 21 July 2003.  China, Japan, Mexico, Norway, 
Chinese Taipei and the United States reserved thei r 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 concerning 
serious prejudice under Annex V of the SCM Agreement. 
 On 11 August 2003, the EC requested the Dir ector-General to compose the panel.  On 
20 August 2003, the panel was composed.  
Following the passing away on 11 April 2004 of Chairman 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 s ubsidies without delay, 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 legal 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/23 
Page 64  
 
 • With regard to individual APRGs and PSLs
 identified by the EC, all of these were 
found to be government financial cont ributions and contingent on export 
performance.  In only certain instances, how ever, did the Panel find that the EC had 
established that the fees and interest rat es charged were below the terms that the 
beneficiaries could have obtained on the market.  The Panel found that those APRGs 
and PSLs provided 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 contribu tions" and the government-owned creditors 
were "public bodies" in the sense of SC M 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 
restructurings, the Panel found that the EC had not established that the decisions to 
restructure rather than liquidate were in consistent with comme rcial considerations, 
nor that the terms of the individual elements of the restructurings were inconsistent with commercial considerations.  Thus , the Panel 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 th at 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 produc t/chemical tankers).  The Panel found 
that the EC had not established that th ese subsidized transactions had caused 
significant suppression or depression of world prices for any of the three ship types, because of the relatively small numbers of su ch transactions in relation to the total 
number of sales of these ships by the Kor ean industry and in the world market as a 
whole, and because the EC had not pr esented 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 
 B. COMPLIANCE
 PANEL  REPORTS  (ARTICLE  21.5) 
Nil. 
 
C. APPELLATE  BODY  REPORTS 
Nil. 
 
D. APPELLATE  BODY  COMPLIANCE  REPORTS  (ARTICLE  21.5) 
Nil. 
 IV. REPORTS CURRENTLY UNDER APPEAL (in descending order, by DS number) 
A. ORIGINAL
 PANEL  REPORTS 
1. WT/DS302 – Dominican Republic – Measures Affecting the Importation and Internal 
Sale of Cigarettes 
Complaint by Honduras.  On 8 October 2003,  Honduras requested consultations with the 
Dominican Republic concerning certain measures affecting the importation and internal sale  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 65 
 
 
 of cigarettes. This request is  a new and expanded ve rsion of a complaint filed by Honduras on 
28 August 2003 (WT/DS300/1).    According to Honduras, the Dominican Republic: 
 
• applies special rules, procedures and admi nistrative practices to determine the value 
of imported cigarettes for the purpose of applying the Selective Consumption Tax 
(inter alia , in certain instances, considers the value of imported cigarettes to be equal 
to the value of the "nearest similar" produc t in the domestic market), and fails to 
establish and apply transparent and generally  applicable criteria for determining 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 conducted by th e 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 cigarettes 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; 
 
• entails costs and administrative burdens hindering the importation of cigarettes by 
requiring importers of cigarettes to post a bond; 
 
• levies a transitional surcharge for economic stabilization 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 measures 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 requested to join the consultations. On 
28 October 2003, the Dominican Republic accepted both requests.   
 On 8 December 2003, Honduras requested the esta blishment of a panel. At its meeting on 
19 December 2003, the DSB defe rred the establishment of a panel. Further to a second 
request to establish a panel by Honduras, th e DSB established a panel at its meeting on 
9 January 2004.  China, Chile, the European  Communities and the United States reserved 
their third-party rights.  On 19 January 2004, Gu atemala, Nicaragua and El Salvador 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 expect ed to complete its work by October 2004. 
 On 26 November 2004, the Panel report was circ ulated to Members. The Panel found that: 
 
• The transitional surcharge and the foreign exchange 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; 
 WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 66  
 
 • The stamp requirement imposed on cigarettes by the Dominican Republic is 
inconsistent with Artic le III:4 of GATT 1994 ; 
 
• Honduras did not demonstrate that the bond requirement imposed on cigarette 
importers by the Dominican Republic violates either Article X:1 or Article III:4 of 
GATT 1994; and 
 
• Before the legislation was amended in  January 2004, the Dominican Republic 
imposed its Selective Consumption Ta x on imported cigarettes in a manner 
inconsistent with Articles III:2 and X of GATT 1994. 
 
The Panel then recommended that the Dominican  Republic bring its measures (namely, the 
foreign exchange fee, the transitional surcharg e 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 Pa nel. On 7 February 2005,  Honduras notified its 
intention to appeal certain issu es of law and legal interpretations 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 th e Report, and that it estimated it would be 
circulated to WTO Members no later than 25 April 2005. 
 
2. WT/DS296 – United States – Countervailing Duty Investigation on Dynamic Random 
Access Memory Semiconducto rs (DRAMs) from Korea 
 Complaint by Korea.  On 30 June 2003, Kor ea requested consultations with the United States 
concerning the US authorities' affirmative preliminary and final countervailing duty determinations, the preliminary injury determin ation and any subsequent  determinations that 
may be made during the injury investigation, on DRAMs and DRAM modules from Korea.  
Korea is also challenging all related laws a nd regulations, including Section 771 of the US 
Tariff Act of 1930 and 19 CFR 351 respectively. 
  Korea claimed that the above determinations 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 consul tations with regard to the US authorities' 
countervailing duty determina tions on DRAMs and DRAM modules from Korea. This 
request concerns the USITC's affirm ative final 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 Ko rea.  Korea claimed that the determinations 
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 estab lishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 
1 December 2003, the DSB deferred the establishmen t of a panel.  Further to a second request 
to establish a panel by Korea, the DSB establishe d a panel at its meeting on 23 January 2004.  
China, the EC, Japan and Chinese Taipei  reserved their third-party rights. 
  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 67 
 
 
 On 23 February 2004, Korea requested the Dir ector-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 schedule 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 dem onstrate 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 direction with respect to all private bodies and the multiple 
transactions over the period of investigati on.  Thus, the Panel concluded that the 
DOC's determination of entrustment or dir ection of those creditors is inconsistent 
with Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv) of the SCM Agreement . 
 
• Concerning the DOC's finding of benefit c onferred 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 fi nancial relationship with Hynix was not 
considered a financial contribution), th ey could have been used as possible 
benchmarks for the determina tion of benefit.  Thus, the Panel found 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 determination of specificity in respect 
of alleged subsidies provided by Group B and C creditors. Ho wever, to the extent that 
the DOC's finding of specificity in resp ect of Group A creditors 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 allegedly subsidized 
imports was not attributed to the allegedl y 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 judicial 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 in tention to appeal certain issues of law and 
legal interpretations developed by the Panel. 
 WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 68  
 
 3. WT/DS285 – United States – Measures Affecting Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and 
Betting Services 
Complaint by Antigua and Barbuda.  On 21 March 2003, Antigua and Barbuda requested 
consultations with the US regarding measu res applied by central, regional and local 
authorities in the US which affect the cross-border supply of gambling and betting services.  
Antigua and Barbuda considered that the cumula tive 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 issue 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  the establishment of a panel.  At its 
meeting on 24 June 2003, the DSB deferred the est ablishment of a panel.  Further to a second 
request by Antigua and Barbuda, the DSB establis hed a panel at its meeting on 21 July 2003.  
Canada, the EC, Mexico and Chinese Taipei reser ved their third-party rights.  On 23 July 
2003, Japan reserved its third-party rights.  
On 15 August 2003, Antigua and Barbuda requested the Director-General to compose the panel.  On 25 August 2003, the Director-Gener al composed the panel. On 29 January 2004, 
the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB th at it would not be possible for the Panel to 
complete its work in six months because vari ous factors had had an impact on the Panel's 
timetable, such as a party's request for prelim inary rulings, the intervention of the holiday 
season, the heavy agenda of the panelists as well as the complexity of the legal and factual questions 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 mutua lly agreed solution to the present dispute, the 
parties requested the Panel to suspend the pane l proceedings, in accordance with Article 12.12 
of the DSU, until 23 August 2004. On 25 June 20 04, the Panel has agreed to this request. The 
parties subsequently requested a continuation of the suspension until 4 October 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 Pane l agreed to the request on 8 October 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 wa s circulated 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 (those of Louisiana, Massachusetts, South Dakota and Utah) on their face, prohibit one, several or all means of delivery included in mode 1 of GA TS (i.e. cross-border supply), contrary to 
the United States' specific market acc ess commitments for gambling and betting 
services for mode 1.  Therefore, the United States failed to accord services and  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 69 
 
 
 service suppliers of Antigua treatment no less favourable than that provided for under 
the terms, limitations and conditions agr eed and specified in the US Schedule, 
contrary to Article XVI:1 and Article 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 successfully the GATS exceptions 
provisions.  In this regard, the United States was not able to demonstrate 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 ec onomy with respect to Antigua's claims 
under Articles XI (i.e. concerning payments and transfers) and XVII (i.e. concerning 
national treatment) of the GATS. 
 
On 7 January 2005, United States notified its inten tion to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the Panel. On 19 January 2005, Antigua and Bar buda notified its 
intention to appeal certain issu es of law and legal 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 completion and translation of th e Report, and that it estimated it would be 
circulated to WTO Members no later than 7 April 2005. 
 
4. WT/DS283, WT/DS266, WT/DS265 – 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 requ ested consultations with the European 
Communities concerning the export subsidies provi ded by the EC in the framework of its 
Common Organisation of the Market for the sugar sector.  The requests concerned 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 legisl ation, regulations, administrative policies and 
other instruments relating to the EC regime fo r sugar and sugar contai ning products including 
the rules adopted pursuant to the procedure refe rred to in Article 42(2) of Council Regulation 
(EC) No. 1260/2001, and any other provision re lated thereto.  On 14 March 2003, Thailand 
requested consultations with the Euro pean Communities on the same matter. 
 
Australia contended that the EC provides under the above measures export subsidies in excess 
of the export subsidy commitments that it has spec ified in Section II of Pa rt 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 alleges that the EC may also be 
paying a higher per unit subsidy on incorporated  products than on the primary product.  In 
addition, under the EC sugar regime refiners are paid a subsidy, in the form of the intervention 
price, for refining EC sugar which is not ava ilable to imported sugar, thus affording less 
favourable treatment to imported products.    WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 70  
 
 According to Australia, the regulation and rela ted instruments and measures taken thereunder 
appear to be inconsistent with, at least:  (a) Articles 3.3, 8, 9.1, 10.1 and 11 of the Agreement on Agriculture,  (b) Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the SCM Agreement; and  
(c) Articles III:4 and XVI of GATT 1994. 
  According to Brazil, the EC provides, unde r Council Regulation (EC) No. 1260/2001, export 
subsidies for sugar and sugar containing pro ducts above its reducti on 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 sugar that is produced 
within certain production quotas (A and B quot as).  Sugar produced in excess of these quotas 
(so-called C sugar) cannot be sold internally in  the year in which it is produced: it must be 
exported or carried over to fulfil the followi ng year's production quotas.  Under the EC's 
common organization of the sugar market and its  regulatory framework, exporters of C sugar 
are able to export C sugar at prices below its total cost of production. 
  In addition, according to the EC's Schedule for sugar and the agricultural notifications 
submitted by the EC to the WTO for marke ting years 1995/1996 through 2000/2001, the EC 
provides export subsidies in excess of its commitments to approximately 1.6 million tons of sugar per year.  The export subsidies provide d 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  accords less favourable treatment to imported 
sugar and is thus in violation of Article III:4 of the GATT 1994. 
  Brazil claimed that, by providing export s ubsidies for sugar in excess of its reduction 
commitment levels the EC is acting inconsis tently with at least the requirements of: 
  (a) Articles 3.3, 8, 9.1(a) and (c), and 10.1 of the Agreement on Agriculture; 
 (b) Articles 3.1(a) and 3.2 of the SCM Agreement; and 
 (c) Articles III:4 and XVI of GATT 1994.  
According to Thailand: 
• The EC sugar regime accords imported suga r a less favourable treatment than that 
accorded to domestic sugar and provides fo r subsidies contingent 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 "export refunds") that cover the 
difference between the world market price and the high prices in the EC for the products in question, thus enabli ng those products to be exported. 
 
Thailand considered that the above subsidies are inconsistent with the EC's obligations under: 
 (a) Article III:4 of GATT 1994; (b) Articles 3.1(a), 3.1(b) and 3.2 of the SCM Agreement; and (c) Articles 3.3, 8, 9.1 and 10.1 of the Agreement on Agriculture.   WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 71 
 
 
  
In the dispute WT/DS265, Barbados, Belize, Braz il, Canada, Colombia, Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, 
Fiji, Guyana, India, Jamaica, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, St. Kitts and Nevis, Swaziland and Zimbabwe requested to join th e consultations.  On 24 October 2002, the EC 
informed the DSB that it had accepted the re quests 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. 
 
 In the dispute WT/DS266, Australia, Barba dos, Belize, 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, Belize, 
Canada, Colombia, Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Fiji, Guyana, India, Jamaica, Kenya, Madagascar, 
Malawi, Mauritius, St. Kitts and Nevis, Swazila nd 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 deferre d the establishment of the panels.  Further to 
second requests to establish a panel from Austra lia, Brazil and Thailand, the DSB established 
a single panel at its meeting on 29 August 2003.  Barbados, Canada, China, Colombia, 
Jamaica, 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-party rights.  
On 2 September 2003, Paraguay and Swaziland reserved their third-party rights.  On 5 
September 2003, India, Madagascar and Malawi  reserved their third-party rights.  On 8 
September 2003, Australia, Brazil, St. Kitts a nd Nevis, Tanzania and Thailand reserved their 
third-party rights.  On 26 September 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 Th ailand requested the Director-General to 
determine the composition of the panel. On  23 December 2003, th e Director-General 
composed the Panel. On 23 June 2004, the Chai rman 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 and 
that the Panel expected to complete its work by early September 2004.  
 
On 15 October 2004, the Panel circulated to Me mbers 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 de termined 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' sp ecified commitment levels.  
 
• the European Communities' exports of sugar had exceeded its annual commitment 
levels since 1995, and in particular since the marketing year 2000/2001.   
 
• producers/exporters  of "ACP/India equivalent 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. 
 WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 72  
 
 • producers/exporters of C sugar that exceeded the European Communities' reduction 
commitment levels received payments on ex port 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 Ag riculture, which provides that where a Member 
exports an agricultural product in quantities that exceed its quantity comm itment 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.   
 
The Panel concluded that the European Comm unities, through its sugar regime, had acted 
inconsistently with its obliga tions 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 commitme nt 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 requ est from all the parties,  the DSB ag reed to 
extend the 60-day period for the adoption of the Panel report until 31 January 2005. On 13 
January 2005, the European Communi ties notified its intention to a ppeal certain issues of law 
and legal interpretations developed by the Panel. 
 
B. COMPLIANCE
 PANEL  REPORTS  (ARTICLE  21.5) 
 Nil 
 
V. COMPLETED PANEL AND APPELLATE BODY REVIEW (in ascending order, by 
DS number) 
A. APPELLATE  BODY  AND  PANEL  REPORTS  ADOPTED 
1. WT/DS2 and WT/DS4 – United States – Sta ndards for Reformulated and Conventional 
Gasoline 
 Complaints by Venezuela and Brazil.  Venezu ela requested consultations on 24 January 1995 
and Brazil on 10 April 1995.  Complainants alle ged that a US gasoline regulation discriminated 
against complainants' gasoline in violation of GATT Articles I and III and Article 2 of the 
Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT).   
  Further to Venezuela's request, the DSB establ ished a Panel at its meeting on 10 April 1995.  
On 26 April 1995 the Panel was composed.  Further to Brazil's request, the DSB established a 
Panel at its meeting on 19 June 1995.  On 31 May 1995, in accordance with Article 9 of the 
DSU, it was agreed that a single panel would consider the complaints of Venezuela and Brazil.  The report of the panel was circ ulated to Members on 29 January 1996.  The report of the panel 
found the regulation to be inconsistent with GA TT Article III:4 and not to benefit from an 
Article XX exception. 
 
 The US appealed on 21 February 1996.  On 22 April, the Appellate Body issued its report, 
modifying the panel report on the interpretation of GATT Article XX(g),  but concluding that 
Article XX(g) was not applicable in this case.  The Appellate Report, together with the panel 
report as modified by the Appellate Report, was adopted  by the DSB on 20 May 1996. 
  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 73 
 
 
 2. WT/DS8, WT/DS10 and WT/DS11 – Japan  – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages 
 Complaints by the European Communities, Canada and the United States.  The EC requested 
consultations on 21 June 1995, a nd Canada and the US on 7 July 1995.  The complainants 
claimed that spirits exported to  Japan were discriminated agains t under the Japanese liquor tax 
system which, in their view, levies a substa ntially lower tax on "shochu" 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 pane l, which found the Japanese tax system to be 
inconsistent with GATT Arti cle III:2, was circulated to Members on 11 July 1996. 
 
 On 8 August 1996 Japan filed an appeal. The re port of the Appellate B ody was circulated to 
Members on 4 October 1996. The Appellate Body's Report affirmed the Panel's conclusion that 
the Japanese Liquor Tax Law is inconsistent with GATT Articl e 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.   
 
3. WT/DS18 – Australia – Measures Affecting the Importation of Salmon 
 Complaint by Canada.  On 5 October 1995, Cana da requested consultations with Australia in 
respect of Australia's prohibiti on of imports of salmon from Canada based on a quarantine 
regulation.  Canada alleged that the prohibition is  inconsistent with GATT Articles XI and XIII, 
and also inconsistent with  the SPS Agreement.   
  On 7 march 1997, Canada requested the establis hment of a panel.  At its meeting on 20 March 
1997, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.   Further to a second request to establish a 
panel by Canada, the DSB established a panel at  its meeting on 10 April 1997.  The EC, India, 
Norway and the US reserved their third-pa rty rights.  On 28 May 1997, the Panel was 
composed.  The report of the Panel was circulat ed to Members on 12 June 1998.  The Panel 
found that Australia's measures complained against we re inconsistent with Articles 2.2, 2.3, 5.1, 
5.5, and 5.6 of the SPS Agreement, and also nulli fied or impaired benefits accruing to Canada 
under the SPS Agreement.  
 
 On 22 July 1998, Australia notified its intenti on to appeal certain is sues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the Panel. The re port of the Appellate B ody was circulated to 
Members on 20 October 1998.  The Appellate Body  reversed the Panel's reasoning with respect 
to Articles 5.1 and 2.2 of the SPS Ag reement but nevertheless found that: 
 
• Australia had acted inconsistently with Ar ticles 5.1 and 2.2 of the SPS Agreement; 
• broadened the Panel's finding that Australia ha d acted inconsistently with Articles 5.5 and 
2.3 of the SPS Agreement; 
• reversed the Panel's finding that  Australia had acted inconsiste ntly with Article 5.6 of the 
SPS Agreement but was unable to come to a c onclusion whether or not Australia's measure 
was consistent with Article 5.6 due to insufficient factual findings by the Panel.  
  The DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report, as modified by the 
Appellate Body Report, on 6 November 1998. 
 WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 74  
 
 4. WT/DS22 – Brazil – Measures Affecting Desiccated Coconut 
 Complaint by the Philippines.  On 27 Novemb er 1995, the Philippines requested consultations 
with Brazil in respect of a count ervailing duty imposed by Brazil on the Philippine's exports of 
desiccated coconut.  The Philippines claimed that  this duty was incons istent with WTO and 
GATT rules.   
 
 On 5 February 1996, the Philippines requested the establishment of a pane l.  At its meeting on 
21 February 1996, the DSB deferred the establishm ent of a panel.  Further to a second request 
to establish a panel by the Philippines, the DS B 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 compos ed.  The report was circ ulated to Members on 
17 October 1996.  The report of the Panel conclude d that the provisions of the agreements relied 
on by the claimant were ina pplicable to the dispute.  
  On 16 December 1996, the Philippines notified its de cision to appeal against certain issues of 
law and legal interpretations developed by the panel. The report of th e Appellate Body was 
circulated to Members on 21 Fe bruary 1997.  The Appellate Body upheld the findings and legal 
interpretations of the Panel.  
  The Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as  modified by the Appellate Body report, were 
adopted by the DSB on 20 March 1997. 
 
5. 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 c onsultations with the 
United States concerning US re strictions on textile imports from Costa Rica.  Costa Rica 
alleged that these restrictions were in violation of the ATC agreement.   
  Further to Costa Rica's request, the DSB esta blished a panel at its meeting on 5 March 1996.  
India reserved its third-party rights.  On 4 April 1996, the Panel was composed.  The report of the panel was circulated to members on 8 November 1996.  The Panel found that the US 
restraints were not valid.  
 
 On 11 November 1996, Costa Rica notified its de cision to appeal against one aspect of the 
Panel report. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated 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.  
 
6. WT/DS26 – European Communities – Measur es Affecting Meat and Meat Products 
(Hormones) 
 Complaint by the United  States.  On 26 January 1996, the Unit ed States requested consultations 
with the European Communities claiming that measures taken by the EC under the Council 
Directive Prohibiting the Use in Livestock Farm ing of Certain Substan ces Having a Hormonal 
Action restrict or prohibit impor ts of meat and meat products from the United States, and are 
apparently inconsistent with GATT Articles III or XI, SPS Agreement Articles 2, 3 and 5, TBT 
Agreement Article 2 and the Agreement on Agriculture Article 4.   
 
 On 25 April 1996, the US requested the establis hment 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  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 75 
 
 
 panel by the US, a panel was esta blished 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 that the EC ban on impo rts 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 intentio n to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the Panel.  The Appell ate Body examined this appeal with that of 
WT/DS48.  The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Memb ers 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 conclusions 
of the Panel, except with respect to the burden of proof in proceedings under the SPS 
Agreement. 
 
 The Appellate Body report and the Panel repo rt, as modified by the Appellate Body, were 
adopted by the DSB on 13 February 1998.   
 
7. WT/DS27 – European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and 
Distribution of Bananas 
 Complaints by Ecuador, Guatemala, Hondur as, Mexico and the United States.  The 
complainants in this case other than Ecuador had requested consultations 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 consulta tions with the EC on 5 February 1996.  The 
complainants alleged that the EC's regime for importation, sale and dist ribution of bananas 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 requeste d the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting 
on 24 April 1996, the DSB deferred the establishmen t of a panel.  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 Direct or-General to determine the composition of the 
Panel.  On 7 June 1996, the Panel was composed.  The report of the Panel was circulated to 
Members on 22 May 1997.  The Panel found that the EC's banana import regime, and the 
licensing procedures for the importation of banana s in this regime, are inconsistent with the 
GATT.  The Panel further found that the Lomé waiver waives the in consistency with GATT 
Article XIII, but not inconsistencies arising from the licensing system.  
  On 11 June 1997, the European Communities notif ied 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 9 September 1997.  Th e Appellate Body mostly upheld the Panel's 
findings, but reversed the Panel's findings that  the inconsistency with GATT 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 Appe llate Body report and the Panel report, as 
modified by the Appellate Body, were adopted by the DSB.   
 WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 76  
 
 8. 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 m easures prohibiting or restricting the importation into Canada 
of certain periodicals.  The US claimed that  the measures are in contravention of GATT 
Article XI.  The US further alleged that the tax treatment of so-called "s plit-run" periodicals and 
the application of favourable posta ge rates to certain Canadian pe riodicals are inconsistent with 
GATT Article III.   
  On 24 May 1996, the US requested the establishmen t 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 circul ated to Members on 14 March 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 Panel. The re port of the Appellate B ody 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 Cana da's Excise Tax Act, but  reversed the Panel's 
finding that Part V.1 of the Excise Act is inconsis tent with the first sentence of Article III:2 of 
GATT 1994.  The Appellate Body further concluded that Part V.1 of the Excise Act is 
inconsistent with the second sentence of Articl e III:2 of GATT 1994.  Th e Appellate Body also 
reversed the Panel's conclusion that Canada's "f unded" postal rate scheme is justified by Article 
III:8(b) of GATT 1994. 
  At its meeting on 30 July 1997, the DSB adop ted the Appellate Body report and the Panel 
report, as modified by  the Appellate Body. 
 
9. WT/DS33 – United States – Measure Affect ing Imports of Woven Wool Shirts and 
Blouses 
 Complaint by India.  On 30 December 1994, I ndia requested consultations with the United 
States concerning the transitional safeguard m easure imposed by the United States.  India 
claimed that the safeguard measure is inconsis tent with Articles 2, 6 and 8 of the ATC. 
 
 On 14 March 1996, India requested the establishmen t of a panel.  At its meeting on 27 March 
1996, the DSB deferred the establishment of a pa nel.  Further 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 Tu rkey reserved their third party rights.  On 24 June 1996, the 
Panel was composed.  The report of the Panel was circulated to Memb ers on 6 January 1997.  
The Panel found that the safeguard measure im posed 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 Panel. The re port of the Appellate B ody was circulated to 
Members on 25 April 1997.  The Appe llate Body upheld the Panel's de cisions 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. 
  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 77 
 
 
 10. WT/DS34 – Turkey – Restrictions on Imports of Textile and Clothing Products 
 Complaint by India.  On 21 March 1996, India requested consultations with Turkey 
concerning Turkey's imposition of quantitative r estrictions on imports of a broad range of 
textile and clothing products.  India claime d that those measures are inconsistent with 
Articles XI and XIII of GATT 1994, as well as ATC Ar ticle 2.  Earlier, India had requested to 
be joined in the consultations between H ong Kong and Turkey on the same subject matter 
(WT/DS29).   
  On 2 February 1998, India requested the estab lishment 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 establishe d a panel at its meeting on 13 March 1998.  
Japan, the Philippines, Thailand, the US and Hong Kong, China reserved their third-party 
rights. On 11 June 1998, the Panel was composed .  The report of the Panel was circulated to 
Members on 31 May 1999.  The Panel found that Turkey's measures are inconsistent with Articles XI and XIII of GATT 1994, and consequen tly inconsistent also with Article 2.4 of 
the ATC.  The Panel also rejected Turkey's ass ertion that its measures are justified by Article 
XXIV of GATT 1994.  
  On 26 July 1999, Turkey 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 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.  Howeve r, the Appellate Body concluded that the 
Panel erred in its legal reasoning in interpreting Article XXIV of GATT 1994.  
 
 At its meeting on 19 November 1999, the DSB adopt ed the Appellate Body report and the Panel 
report, as modified by th e Appellate Body report. 
 
11. 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 la ws, regulations and requirements  affecting the distribution, 
offering for sale and internal sale of imported consumer photographic film and paper.  The US 
alleged that: 
 
• the Japanese Government trea ted imported film a nd paper less favourably through these 
measures, in violation of GATT Articles III and X. 
• these measures nullify or impa ir benefits accruing to the US  (a non-violation claim).   
 
 On 20 September 1996, the US requested the establishment 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 meeting on 16 October 1996.  The EC and Mexico reserved their third party rights.  On 12 December 1996, the US requested 
the Director-General to dete rmine the composition of the Pa nel.  On 17 December 1996, the 
Panel was composed.  The report of the Panel was circulated to Members on 31 March 1998.  
The Panel found: 
 
• that the US had not demonstrated that the Japa nese '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); WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 78  
 
 • that the US had not demonstrated that the Japa nese distribution 'measu res' cited by the US 
accord less favourable treatment to impor ted photographic film and paper within the 
meaning of GATT Article III:4;  and 
• that the US did not demonstrate that Japan failed to publish administrative rulings of 
general application in violat ion of GATT Article X:1.  
 
 The Panel report was adopted by the DSB on 22 April 1998. 
 
12. WT/DS46 – Brazil – Export Financing Programme for Aircraft 
 Complaint by Canada.  On 19 June 1996, Canada requested consultations with Brazil based on 
Article 4 of the Subsidies Agreement, which provides for special procedures for export 
subsidies. Canada claimed that export subsidies granted under the Brazilian Programa de 
Financiamento às Exportações (PROEX) , to foreign purchasers of Brazil's Embraer aircraft are 
inconsistent with the Subsidies Agr eement Articles 3, 27.4 and 27.5.   
  Canada requested the establis hment of a panel on 16 Septembe r 1996, alleging violations of 
both the Subsidies Agreement and GATT 1994.  The DSB considered this request at its meeting 
on 27 September 1996.  Due to Brazil's objection to  the establishment of a panel, Canada agreed 
to modify its request, limiting the scope of the request to the Subsidies Agreement.  The modified request was submitte d by Canada on 3 October 1996 but  was subsequently withdrawn 
prior to a DSB meeting at which it was to be considered.   
  On 10 July 1998, Canada again requested the es tablishment 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 Direct or-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.  Th e Panel found that Braz il's measures were 
inconsistent with Articles 3.1(a) an d 27.4 of the Subsidies Agreement.  
 
 On 3 May 1999, Brazil notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the Panel. The re port of the Appellate B ody was circulated to 
Members on 2 August 1999.  The Appellate Body  upheld all the findings of the 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. 
  The DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report, as modified by the 
Appellate Body Report, on 20 August 1999. 
 
13. WT/DS48 – European Communities – Measures Affecting Livestock and Meat 
(Hormones)  
 Complaint by Canada.  On 28 June 1996, Canada requested consultations with the EC regarding 
the importation of livestock and meat from lives tock that have been treated with certain 
substances having a hormonal action under GATT Article XXII and the corresponding 
provisions in the SPS, TBT and Agriculture Agreem ents.  Violations SPS Articles 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 establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 27 
September 1996, the DSB deferred the establishmen t of a panel.  Further to a second request  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 79 
 
 
 to establish a panel by Canada, the DSB establis hed a panel 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 sp ecific hormones for growth 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 intentio n to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the Panel.  The Appell ate Body examined this appeal with that of 
WT/DS26.  The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Memb ers 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 conclusions 
of the Panel, except with respect to the burden of proof in proceedings under the SPS 
Agreement.  
 
 The Appellate Body report and the Panel repo rt, as modified by the Appellate Body, were 
adopted by the DSB on 13 February 1998.  
 
14. WT/DS50 – India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical 
Products 
 Complaint by the United States .  On 2 July 1996, the US reque sted consultations with India 
concerning the alleged absence of patent pr otection for pharmaceutic al and agricultural 
chemical products in India. Violations of the TRIPS Agreem ent 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 composed.  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 adequa tely preserves novelty and priority in respect of applications 
for product patents for pharmaceuti cal and agricultural chemical in ventions, and was also not in 
compliance with Article 70.9 of the TRIPS Agr eement by failing to establish a system for the 
grant of exclusive marketing rights.  
  On 15 October 1997, India notified its intention to appeal certain issu es of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the Panel. The re port of the Appellate B ody was circulated to 
Members on 19 December 1997.  The Appellate Bo dy upheld, with modifi cations, 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 repo rt, as modified by the Appellate Body, were 
adopted by the DSB on 16 January 1998. 
 
15. WT/DS54, WT/DS55, WT/DS59 and WT/D S64 – Indonesia – Certain Measures 
Affecting the Automobile Industry 
 Complaints by the European Communities (W T/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 reques ted consultations with  Indonesia concerning 
Indonesia's National Car Programme.  The EC alle ged that the exemption from customs duties WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 80  
 
 and luxury taxes on imports of "national vehicles" and comp onents thereof, and related 
measures were in violation of  Indonesia's obligations under Arti cles I and III of GATT 1994, 
Article 2 of the TRIMs Agreement and Article 3 of the SCM Agreement.  Japan contended that 
these measures were in violati on 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 measur es were in violation of  Indonesia's obligations  under Article I and III 
of GATT 1994, Article 2 of the TRIMs Agreemen t, Article 3, 6 and 28 of the SCM Agreement 
and Articles 3, 20 and 65 of the TRIPS Agreement. 
  On 17 April 1997, Japan requested the establishm ent of a panel with respect to complaints 
WT/DS55 and WT/DS64.  At its meeti ng on 30 April 1997, the DSB deferred the 
establishment of a panel. On 12 May 1997, the EC requested the establishment of a panel 
with respect to WT/DS54.  At its mee ting on 23 May 1997, the DSB deferred the 
establishment of a panel.  Further to the EC's and Japan's second request s, the DSB established 
a panel at its meeting on 12 June 1997.  In acc ordance 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 reserved their third party rights.   
  On 12 June 1997, the US requested the establis hment of a panel.  At its meeting on 25 June 
1997, the DSB deferred the establishment of a pa nel.  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 examine 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 requeste d the Director-General to determine the 
composition of the Panel.  On 29 July 1997, the Panel was composed. 
  The report of the Panel was ci rculated to Members 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 vi olation of Article 28.2 of the 
SCM Agreement.  The Panel however, found that the complainants had not  demonstrated that 
Indonesia was in violation of Ar ticles 3 and 65.5 of the TRIPS Agreement. At its meeting on 23 
July 1998, the DSB adopted the Panel report. 
 
16. WT/DS56 – Argentina – Certain Measures A ffecting Imports of Footwear, Textiles, 
Apparel and Other Items 
 Complaint by the United States.  On 4 Oct ober 1996, the US requested consultations with 
Argentina concerning the imposition of specific  duties on these items in excess of the bound 
rate and other measures by Argentina. The US c ontended that these measures violate Articles II, 
VII, VIII and X of GATT 1994, Article 2 of the TBT Agreement, Ar ticle 1 to 8 of the 
Agreement on the Implementation of Articl e  VII of GATT 1994, and Article 7 of the 
Agreement on Textiles and Clothing.   
 
 On 9 January 1997, the US requested the estab lishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 22 
January 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 25 February 1997.  
The EC and India reserved their third-party right s.  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 
requirements of Article II of GATT, and th at the statistical tax of three per cent ad valorem   WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 81 
 
 
 imposed by Argentina on imports is inconsistent  with the requirements of Article VIII of 
GATT. 
  On 21 January 1998, Argentina notified its intenti on to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the Panel. The re port of the Appellate B ody 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 repo rt, as modified by the Appellate Body, were 
adopted by the DSB on 22 April 1998. 
 
17. WT/DS58 – United States – Import Prohibit ion of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products 
 Complaint by India, Malaysia, Pakistan and Thailand. On 8 October 1996, India, Malaysia, 
Pakistan and Thailand requested consultations with the US co ncerning a ban on importation of 
shrimp and shrimp products fro m these complainants imposed by the US under Section 609 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 a nd Thailand requested the establis hment of a panel.  At its 
meeting on 22 January 1997, the DSB deferred th e establishment of a panel.  On 30 January 
1997, Pakistan also requested the es tablishment of a panel.  Furthe r to Malaysia's, Pakistan's and 
Thailand's requests, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 25 February 1997.  Australia, 
Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, th e EC, Guatemala, Hong Kong, Indi a, Japan, Mexico, Nigeria, 
the Philippines, Senegal, Singapore and Sri La nka reserved their third-party rights.   
  On 25 February 1997, India also requested the esta blishment of a panel on the same matter.  At 
its meeting on 20 March 1997, the DSB deferred th e establishment of a panel.  Further to a 
second request to establish a panel by India, the DSB agreed to establish a panel at its meeting 
on 10 April 1997.  It was also agr eed 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 appl ied by the United States is inconsistent with 
Article XI:1 of GATT 1994, and cannot be ju stified under Article XX of GATT 1994.  
  On 13 July 1998, the US notified its intention to appeal certain issu es of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the Panel. The re port of the Appellate B ody was circulated to 
Members on 12 October 1998.  The Appellate Body  reversed the 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 
justification under Article XX(g), fails to meet the requirements of the chapeau of Article XX. 
  The DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report, as modified by the 
Appellate Body Report, on 6 November 1998. 
 WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 82  
 
 18. WT/DS60 – Guatemala – Anti-Dumping Investigation Regarding Imports of Portland 
Cement from Mexico 
 Complaint by Mexico.  On 15 October 1996, Mexi co requested consultati ons with Guatemala in 
respect of an anti-dumping investigation commen ced 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.   
  On 4 February 1997, Mexico requested the est ablishment 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 determ ine the composition of the Panel.  On 1 May 
1997, the Panel was composed.  The report of th e Panel was circulated to Members on 19 June 
1998.  The Panel found that Guatemala had failed to comply with the re quirements of Article 
5.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by initiating th e investigation on the basis of evidence of 
dumping, injury and casual link that was not "s ufficient" as a justification for initiation.  
  On 4 August 1998, Guatemala notif ied its intention to appeal ce rtain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the Panel. The re port of the Appellate B ody was circulated to 
Members on 2 November 1998.  Th e Appellate Body reversed the Panel's finding that the 
dispute was properly before the Panel, on the ground that Mexico did not comply 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 Appellate Body 
could not make any conclusions on the findings by the Panel on the substantive issues that were 
also the subject of the appeal.  The Appellate Body stressed that its decision was without prejudice to Mexico's right to pursue new di spute settlement procee dings on this matter. 
 
 At the DSB meeting on 25 November 1998, th e DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and 
the Panel Report, as reversed by the Appellate Body Report. 
 
19. WT/DS62, WT/DS67 and WT/DS68 – European Communities – Customs Classification 
of Certain Computer Equipment 
 Complaints by the United States.  These are in respect of the alleged reclassification by the 
European Communities, for tari ff purposes, of certain Local Area Network (LAN) adapter 
equipment and personal computers with multimedia capability. The US alleged that these measures violate Articl e II of GATT 1994.   
 
 At its meeting on 25 February 1997, the DSB established 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 the 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 ci rculated to Members on 5 Febr uary 1998.  The Panel found that 
the EC failed to accord imports of LAN equi pment from the US treatment no less favourable 
than that provided for in the EC Schedule of commitments, thereby acting inconsistently with Article II:1 of GATT 1994.  
 
 On 24 March 1998, the EC notifie d its intention to appeal cert ain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the Panel. The re port of the Appellate B ody was circulated to  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 83 
 
 
 Members on 5 June 1998.  The Appe llate Body reversed the Panel's conclusion that the EC 
tariff treatment of LAN equipment is incons istent with Article II:1 of GATT 1994.  
  At its meeting on 22 June 1998, the DSB adop ted the Appellate Body report and the Panel 
report, as modified by the Appellate Body report.   
 
20. WT/DS69 – European Communities – Meas ures Affecting Importation of Certain 
Poultry Products 
 Complaint by Brazil.  On 24 February 1997, Br azil requested consultations with the EC in 
respect of the EC regime for the importation of  certain poultry products and the implementation 
by the EC of the Tariff Rate Quota for these pr oducts.  Brazil contended that the EC measures 
are inconsistent with Articl es X and XXVII of GATT 1994 a nd Articles 1 and 3 of the 
Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures.  Brazil  also contended that the measures nullify or 
impair benefits accruing to it dire ctly or indirectly under GATT 1994.   
 
 On 12 June 1997, Brazil requested the establishm ent of a panel.  At its meeting on 25 June 
1997, the DSB deferred the establishment of a pa nel.  Further to a second request to establish 
a panel by Brazil, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 30 July 1997.  Thailand and the 
US reserved their third-party rights. On 11 A ugust 1997, the Panel was composed.  The report 
of the Panel was circulated to Members on 12 Ma rch 1998.  The panel found that Brazil had not 
demonstrated that the EC had failed to implemen t 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 appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the Panel. The re port of the Appellate B ody was circulated to 
Members on 13 July 1998.  The Appellate Body upheld most of the Panel's findings and 
conclusions, but reversed the Panel's finding that  the EC had acted inconsistently with Article 
5.1(b) of the Agreement on Agriculture.  The Appellate Body, however, concluded that the EC 
had acted inconsistently with Article 5.5 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
  At its meeting on 23 July 1998, the DSB adop ted the Appellate Body report and the Panel 
report, as modified by th e Appellate Body report. 
 
21. WT/DS70 – Canada – Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft 
 Complaint by Brazil.  On 10 March 1997, Brazil reques ted consultations with  Canada in respect 
of certain subsidies granted by the Government of  Canada or its provinces intended 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 with Article 3 of the 
Subsidies Agreement.   
  At its meeting on 23 July 1998, the DSB establishe d a panel.  The US reserved its third party 
rights.  On 16 October 1998, Brazil 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 Member s on 14 April 1999. The Panel found that certain of Canada's 
measures were inconsistent w ith 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 appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the Panel. The re port of the Appellate B ody was circulated to 
Members on 2 August 1999.  The Appellate Body upheld the findings of the panel.  WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 84  
 
  
 The DSB adopted the Appellate Body  and Panel Reports on 20 August 1999. 
 
22. WT/DS75 and WT/DS84 – Korea – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages 
 Complaints by the European Communities and the United Stat es.  On 4 April 1997, the EC 
requested consultations with Korea in respect of internal taxes imposed by Korea on certain 
alcoholic beverages pursuant to its Liquor Tax Law and Education Tax Law.  The EC 
contended that the Korean Liquor Tax Law and Ed ucation 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.  The 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 th e establishment of a panel.  Further to a 
second request to establish a panel by the EC and the US, the DSB established a panel at its 
meeting on 16 October 1997.  Ca nada and Mexico reserved thei r third-party rights.  On 26 
November 1997, the EC and the US requeste d 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 is sue, namely, whisky, brandy, rum, gin, vodka, 
tequila, liqueurs and ad-mixtures.   
• Korea has taxed the imported products in a dissim ilar manner and that the tax differential 
was more than de minimis , and is applied so as to afford protection to dome stic 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 issu es of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the Panel. The re port of the Appellate B ody 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 Appell ate Body Reports on 17 February 1999. 
 
23. WT/DS76 – Japan – Measures Affecting Agricultural Products 
 Complaint by the United States .  On 7 April 1997, the US reques ted 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 tr eatment has been tested for that variety, 
even if the treatment has proved to be effective fo r other varieties 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 made a claim for nullification 
and impairment of benefits.   
  On 3 October 1997, the US requested the estab lishment 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 thir d-party rights. The report of the Panel was 
circulated to Members on 27 Octo ber 1998.  The Panel found that  Japan acted in consistently 
with Articles 2.2 and 5.6 of the SPS Agreement,  and Annex B and, consequently, Article 7 of 
the SPS Agreement.   WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 85 
 
 
  
 On 24 November 1998, Japan notified its intenti on to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the Panel. The re port of the Appellate B ody 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 a nd walnuts is inconsistent with the requirements 
of the SPS Agreement.  
  The DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report, as modified by the 
Appellate Body Report, on 19 March 1999.   
 24. WT/DS79 – India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical 
Products 
 Complaint by the European Communities.  On 28 April 1997, the EC re quested consultations 
with India in respect of the alleged absence in India of patent protecti on for pharmaceutical and 
agricultural chemical products , and the absence of formal sy stems that permit the filing of 
patent applications of and provide exclusive marketing rights for such products.  The EC 
contended that this is inconsistent with India's obligations under Article 70, paragraphs 8 and 9, 
of the TRIPS Agreement (see similar US co mplaint in WT/DS50, where the Panel and 
Appellate Body reports were adopted on 16 January 1998).   
  On 9 September 1997, the EC requested the estab lishment 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 establish a panel by the EC, the DSB established a panel at its meeting 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 esta blish a legal basis that adequately preserves 
novelty and priority in respect of applicatio ns for product patents fo r 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 th e grant of exclusive marketing rights. At its 
meeting on 22 September 1998, the DSB adopted the Panel Report. 
 
25. WT/DS87 and 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 Special 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 establis hment of a panel in respect of the complaint 
WT/DS87.  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 EC, the DSB established a panel 
at its meeting on 18 November 1997. Canada, Mexi co, Peru and the US reserved their third-
party rights.   
  Further to the EC's complaint with respect to  WT/DS110, the DSB esta blished a panel at its 
meeting on 25 March 1998.  The DSB also agreed th at a single panel be established to examine 
the two complaints.  Peru, Canada and the US re served their third-party rights.  On 10 and 11 
June 1998, the EC and Chile, resp ectively, requested the Director-G eneral to determine the 
composition of the Panel.  On 1 July 1998, the Panel was composed. The report of the panel WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 86  
 
 was circulated to Members on 15 June 1999.  Th e panel found that Chile's Transitional System 
and its New System for taxation of distilled alcoholic beverages was inconsistent 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 Panel. The re port of the Appellate B ody was circulated to 
Members on 13 December 1999.  The Appellate Bo dy upheld the panel's interpretation and 
application of Article III:2 of GA TT 1994, subject to exclusion of  certain considerations relied 
upon by the panel.  
 
 The DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report, as modified by the 
Appellate Body Report, on 12 January 2000.  
 
26. 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 consul tations with India in 
respect of quantitative restrictions maintained  by India on importation of a large number of 
agricultural, textile and industr ial products.  The US conten ded that these quantitative 
restrictions, including the more than 2,700 agricu ltural and industrial produc t tariff lines notified 
to the WTO, are inconsistent with India's ob ligations under Articles XI:1 and XVIII:11 of 
GATT 1994, Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agri culture, and Article 3 of the Agreement on 
Import Licensing Procedures.   
  On 3 October 1997, the US requested the establ ishment 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, the DSB esta blished a panel at its meeting on 18 November 1997.  On 10 
February 1998, the US requested the Director-G eneral to determine the composition of the 
Panel.  On 20 February 1998, the Panel was comp osed.  The report of the Panel was circulated 
to Members on 6 April 1999.  The panel found that the measures at issue we re inconsistent with 
India's obligations under Articles XI and XVIII 11 of GATT 1994, and to the extent that the 
measures apply to produc ts subject to the Agreement on Agri culture, are inconsistent with 
Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  The panel also found the measures to be 
nullifying or impairing benefits accruing to the United States under GATT 1994, and the 
Agreement on Agriculture.   
  On 26 May 1999, India 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 23 August 1999.  The Appellate Body upheld all of the findings of the panel that 
were appealed from.   
  The DSB adopted the Panel a nd Appellate Body reports at its meeting on 22 September 1999. 
 
27. WT/DS98 – Korea – Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Certain Dairy 
Products 
 Complaint by the European Co mmunities.  On 12 August 1997, th e 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 unde r the provisions of different governmental 
measures, Korea has imposed a sa feguard measure in the form of  an import quota on imports of 
certain dairy products.  The EC considered that this  measure is in violati on of Articles 2, 4, 5 
and 12 of the Agreement on Safe guard Measures, as well as a violation of Article XIX of 
GATT 1994.    WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 87 
 
 
  
 On 9 January 1998, the EC requ ested the establishment of a panel.  At the DSB meeting on 
22 January 1998, the EC informed the DSB that it was, for the time being, not pursuing the panel request.  On 10 June 1998, the EC made a an other request to establ ish a panel.  At its 
meeting on 22 June 1998, the DSB deferred the esta blishment 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 Me mbers on 21 June 1999.  The panel found that Korea's 
measure is inconsistent with Articles 4.2(a), a nd 5 of the Agreement on Safeguards, but rejected 
the EC claims under Article XIX of GATT 1994,  Articles 2.1, 12.1 (although it found that 
Korea's notifications to the Committee on Safeguar ds were not timely, and to that extent were 
inconsistent with Article 12.1), 12.2 an d 12.3 of the Agreement on Safeguards.  
  On 15 September 1999, Korea notified its intentio n to appeal certain is sues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the Panel. The re port of the Appellate B ody was circulated to 
Members on 14 December 1999.  The Appellate Body reversed 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 revers ed another of the panel's interp retations of Article 5.1 of the 
Agreement on Safeguards; and concluded that Korea violated Article 12.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, thereby reversing in  part the panel's finding.  
 
 The DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report, as modified by the 
Appellate Body Report, on 12 January 2000.  
 
28. 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 requested consultations w ith the US in respect 
of a decision of the US Depart ment of Commerce (DoC) not to revoke the anti-dumping duty 
on dynamic random access memory semi-conduct ors (DRAMS) of one megabyte or above 
originating from Korea.  Korea contended that the DoC's decision was made despite the finding 
that the Korean DRAM producers have not dumpe d their products for a period of more than 
three and a half consecutive years, and despite the existence of evidence demonstrating 
conclusively that Korean DRAM  producers will not engage in du mping DRAMS in the future.  
Korea considered that these measures are in violation of Articles 6 and 11 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.   
  On 6 November 1997, Korea requested the esta blishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 18 
November 1997, the DSB deferred the establishmen t of a panel.  Further to a second request to 
establish a panel by Korea, the DSB establishe d a panel at its meeting on 16 January 1998. On 
10 March 1998, Korea requested the Director-G eneral to determine the composition of the 
Panel.  On 19 March 1998, the Panel was composed .  The report of the Panel was circulated on 
29 January 1999.  The Panel found the measures compla ined of to be in violation of Article 11.2 
of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. At its meeti ng on 19 March 1999, the DSB adopted the Panel 
Report. 
 
29. WT/DS103 and WT/DS113 – Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and 
the Exportation of Dairy Products 
 Complaints by the United States and New Zealand.   
 
 On 8 October 1997, the US requested consultations  with Canada in respect of export subsidies 
allegedly granted by Canada on dairy products and the administra tion by Canada of the tariff-WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 88  
 
 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 
Article 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 Zealan d requested consultations with  Canada in respect of an 
alleged dairy export subsidy scheme  commonly referred to as the "s pecial milk classes" scheme.  
New Zealand contended that the Canadian "special  milk classes" scheme 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 establ ishment of a panel in respect of WT/DS103.  
At its meeting on 13 February 1998, the DSB defe rred the establishment of a panel.  On 25 
March 1998, further to requests from the US a nd New Zealand, the 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-pa rty rights. On 12 August 1998, the Panel was 
composed.  The report of the Panel was circul ated to Members on 17 May 1999.  The Panel 
found that the measures complained against were inconsistent with Cana da'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 Arti cle 9.1(a) and 9.1(c) of the Agreement on 
Agriculture.  
 
 On 15 July 1999, Canada notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the Panel.  The re port of the Appellate B ody was circulated on 
13 October 1999.  The Appellate Body ruled as follows: 
 
• it reversed the Panel's interpretation of Articl e 9.1(a) and, in consequence, reversed the 
Panel's finding that Canada acted inconsisten tly 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 re spect of export subsidies listed  in Article 9.1(c) of the 
Agreement on Agriculture.   
• it partly reversed the Panel's finding that Canada acted inconsistently with its obligations 
under Article II:1(b) of GATT 1994.  
 
 At its meeting on 27 October 1999, the DSB adop ted the Appellate Body report and the Panel 
report, as modified by th e Appellate Body report.  
 
30. 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 Sectio ns 921-927 of the US Internal Revenue Code and 
related measures, establishing special tax treatm ent for "Foreign Sales Corporations" (FSC).  
The EC contended that these provisions we re inconsistent with US obligations under 
Articles III:4 and XVI of the GATT 1994, Articl es 3.1(a) and (b) of the Subsidies Agreement, 
and Articles 3 and 8 of the Agreement on Agriculture.   
 
 On 1 July 1998, the EC requested the establishmen t of a Panel.  In the request for a panel, the 
EC invoked Article 3.1(a) and (b) of the Subsidie s Agreement, 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 esta blishment 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  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 89 
 
 
 September 1998.  Barbados, Cana da and Japan reserved their third-parties rights.  On 9 
November 1998, the Panel was composed.  The re port of the panel was circulated to Members 
on 8 October 1999.  The panel found that, through th e FSC scheme, the Unit ed 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 intenti on to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the panel.  On 2 November 1999, the US wi thdrew its notice of 
appeal pursuant to Rule 30 of the Working Proc edures for Appellate Review, stating that the 
withdrawal was conditional on its right to file a new notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 20 of the 
Working Procedures.  On 26 November 1999, the US notified its intention to appeal certain 
issues of law and legal interpretations developed by the panel.  The repor t 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 measure constituted a prohibited subsidy under 
Article 3.1(a) of the SCM Agreement.   
• it reversed the panel's finding that the FSC m easure 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 Arti cles 10.1 and 8 of the 
Agriculture Agreement by applying export su bsidies, through the FSC measure, in a 
manner which results in, or threatens to l ead to, circumvention 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 th e panel report, as modi fied by the Appellate 
Body report, at its meeting on 20 March 2000. 
 
31. WT/DS114 – Canada – Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products 
 Complaint by the European Communities and th eir member States.  On 19 December 1997, the 
EC requested consultations with  Canada in respect of the al leged lack of protection of 
inventions by Canada in the area of pharmace uticals under the relevant provisions of the 
Canadian implementing legislation, in particular the Patent Act.  The EC alleged that Canada's 
legislation is not compatible with its obligations under the TR IPS Agreement, because it does 
not provide for the full protection of patented pharmaceutical inventions for the entire duration 
of the term of protection envi saged by Articles 27.1, 28 and 33 of the TRIPS Agreement.   
  On 11 November 1998, the EC requested the esta blishment 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 it s meeting on 1 February 1999.  
Australia, Brazil, Colombia, Cuba, India, Israel , Japan, Poland, Switze rland, 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 determ ine 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 provided for in Canada's Patent Act 
(Section 55.2(1)) – the first aspect of the Pa tent Act challenged by the EC – was not WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 90  
 
 inconsistent with Article 27.1 of the TRIPS Agreement and was covered by the exception 
in Article 30 of the TRIPS Agreement and ther efore not inconsistent with Article 28.1 of 
the TRIPS Agreement.  Under the regulatory re view exception, potential competitors of a 
patent owner are permitted to use the patented invention, wi thout the authorization 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 competition with 
the patent owner by the date on which the patent expires.   
• the so-called stockpiling exception (Section 55.2(2)) –the second aspect of the Patent Act 
challenged by the EC, was inconsistent with Article 28.1 of the TR IPS Agreement and was 
not covered by the exception in Article 30 of the TRIPS Agreement.  Under the stockpiling exception, competitors are allowed to manuf acture and stockpile patented goods during a 
certain period before the patent expires, but  the goods cannot be sold until after the patent 
expires.  The panel considered that, unlike the 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 with in the meaning of Article 30 of the TRIPS 
Agreement.   
  The DSB adopted the panel report at its meeting on 7 April 2000.  
32. WT/DS121 – Argentina – Safeguard Me asures on Imports of Footwear 
 Complaint by the European Co mmunities.  On 3 April 1998, the EC requested consultations 
with Argentina in respect of provisional a nd definitive safeguard measures imposed by 
Argentina on imports of footwear.  The EC asse rted that by Resolution 226/97 of 24 February 
1997, Argentina imposed a provisional safeguard measure in the form of specific duties on 
imports of footwear effective from 25 Febr uary 1997, which was followed by Resolution 
987/97, which imposed a defini tive safeguard measure on th ese imports effective 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 establis hment of a panel.  At its meeting on 22 June 
1998, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.   Further to a second request to establish a 
panel, the DSB established a pa nel at its meeting on 23 July 1998.  Brazil, Indonesia, Paraguay, 
the US and Uruguay reserved their third-partie s rights. On 15 September 1998, the Panel was 
composed.  The report of the panel was circ ulated on 25 June 1999.  The panel found that 
Argentina's measure is inconsistent with Arti cles 2 and 4 of the Agreement on Safeguards.  
  On 15 September 1999, Argentina not ified its intention to appeal cer tain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the Panel. The re port of the Appellate B ody was circulated to 
Members on 14 December 1999.  The Appellat e Body upheld the panel's finding that 
Argentina's measure is inconsistent with Articl es 2 and 4 of the Agreement on Safeguards, but 
reversed certain findings and conclusions of the panel in respect of the relationship between the 
Agreement on Safeguards and Article XIX of GATT 1994 and th e justification of imposing 
safeguard measures only on non-MERCOSUR  third country sources of supply.  
  The DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report, as modified by the 
Appellate Body Report, on 12 January 2000.  
  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 91 
 
 
 33. 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, Pola nd requested 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 provisional 
anti-dumping duties were imposed by Tha iland on 27 December 1996, and a final 
anti-dumping duty 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 requests by Poland for discl osure of findings.  Poland contended that 
these actions by Thailand violate Articles 2, 3,  5 and 6 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.   
 
 On 13 October 1999, Poland requested the estab lishment 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 meeting on 19 November 1999.  
The EC, Japan and the US reserved their third- party rights. On 20 December 1999, the Panel 
was composed.  The report was circulated to Members on 28 September 2000.  The Panel 
concluded that: 
  (i) Poland failed to establish that Thailand ha d acted inconsistently with its obligations 
under Article 2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreem ent 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 definitiv e anti-dumping measure on imports of H-beams 
from Poland was inconsistent with the requi rements of Article 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 basi s of an "objective examination" of 
"positive evidence" in the disclosed factua l 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 in jury could be reached  on the basis of 
an "unbiased or objective evaluation" or an "objective examination" of "positive 
evidence" in the disclosed  factual basis; and  
• inconsistently with Articles 3.5 and 3.1, the Thai authorities made a 
determination of a causal relationship be tween dumped imports and any possible 
injury on the basis of (a) their finding s concerning the price effects of dumped 
imports, which the Panel had already f ound 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 found to be in consistent with Article 3.4 and 3.1.  
  (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 constitute 
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 Agreement, it has nullified or impaired  benefits accruing to Poland under that 
Agreement.  
 WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 92  
 
  On 23 October 2000, Thailand notified the DSB of its decision to appeal certain issues of law 
covered in the Panel Report and legal interpretations 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.  Th e Appellate Body was of the view that there was no basis 
for the Panel's reasoning, either in Article 3. 1 of the AD Agreement, which lays down the 
obligations of Members with respect to the de termination 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 a pplication 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 adopt ed the Appellate Body report and the panel 
report, as modified by the Appellate Body report. 
 34. WT/DS126 – Australia – Subsidies Provided to  Producers and Exporters of Automotive 
Leather 
 Complaint by the United  States.  On 4 May 1998, the US reque sted consultations with Australia 
in respect of prohibited subsidies allegedly pr ovided to Australian producers and exporters of 
automotive leather, including subsidies provide d to Howe and Company Proprietary Ltd. (or 
any of its affiliated and/or parent companies), which allegedly involve preferential government 
loans of about A$25 million and non-commercial te rms and grants of about A$30 million.  The 
US contended that these measures violate the ob ligations of Australia under Article 3 of the 
Subsidies Agreement.   
  Further to the US's request, th e DSB established a panel at its meeting on 22 June  1998 (see also 
WT/DS106).  On 27 October 1998, the US reques ted the Director-Gener al 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 contingent 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 mean ing of Article 3.1(a) of that Agreement. At 
its meeting on 16 June 1999, the DSB adopted the Panel report. 
 
35. 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, the US re quested 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  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 93 
 
 
 Government of Mexico published a notice initia ting this anti-dumping investigation 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 notice 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 establ ishment 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 establishe d 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 circul ated to Members on 28 January 2000.  The Panel 
found that:  
 
• Mexico's initiation of the anti-dumping investigation 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 pr ovisions 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. 
 
36. WT/DS135 – European Communities – Measures Affecting the Prohibition of Asbestos 
and Asbestos Products 
 Complaint by Canada.  On 28 May 1998, Canada re quested consultations with the EC in respect 
of measures imposed by France, in particular Decree of 24 Dece mber 1996, with respect to the 
prohibition of asbestos and products containing asbestos, including a ban on imports of such goods.  Canada alleged that thes e measures violate Articles 2,  3 and 5 of the SPS Agreement, 
Article 2 of the TBT Agreement, and Articles III, XI and XIII of GA TT 1994.  Canada also 
alleged nullification and impairme nt of benefits accruing to it under the various agreements 
cited.   
  On 8 October 1998, Canada requ ested the establishment of a pa nel.  At its meetings on 21 
October 1998, the DSB deferred the establishment of  a panel.  Further to a second request to 
establish a panel by Canada, the DSB establis hed a panel at its meeting on 25 November 1998. 
The US reserved its third-party rights.  The report of the panel was circulated to Members on 
18 September 2000. The Panel found that: 
 
• the "prohibition" part of the Decree of 24 December 1996 does not fall within the scope 
of the TBT Agreement;   
• the part of the Decree relating to "excepti ons" 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 th e Decree relating to exceptions, the Panel 
refrained from reaching any conclusi on 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; WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 94  
 
 • the asbestos-cement products and the fibr o-cement 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 lik e, 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 Disput e Settlement Body of its decision to appeal 
certain issues of law covered in the Panel Re port and legal interpreta tions developed by the 
Panel. The Appellate Body circulated its  report on 12 March 2001. The Appellate Body: 
 
• ruled that the French Decree, prohibiting asb estos and asbestos-containing products had 
not been shown to be inconsistent with th e European Communities' obligations under the 
WTO agreements; 
• reversed the Panel's finding that the TBT Agreement does not apply to the prohibitions in 
the measure concerning asbestos and asbestos -containing 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 pa rticular, that the Panel erred in excluding 
the health risks associated with asbestos  from its examination of "likeness".   
• reversed the Panel's conclusion that the measure  is inconsistent with Article III:4 of the 
GATT 1994.  The Appellate Body itself examin ed 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   
• 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  additional 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 submissi on.  The Appellate 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 adopt ed the Appellate Body report and the panel 
report, as modified by the Appellate Body report. 
 
37. WT/DS136 – United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 
 Complaint by the European Co mmunities.  On 9 June 1988, th e 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 still in force and is applicable to 
the import and internal sale of any foreign produc t irrespective of its origin, including products 
originating in countries which are WTO Members.  The EC also alleged that the 1916 Act exists 
in the US statute books in parall el with the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, which includes the 
US implementing legislation of  multilateral Anti-Dumping provisions.  The EC alleged  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 95 
 
 
 violations of Ar ticles III:4, VI:1, an d VI:2 of GATT 1994, Article XVI:4 of the WTO 
Agreement, and Articles 1, 2, 3, 4 a nd 5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.   
  On 1 November 1998, the EC requested the esta blishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 25 
November 1998, the DSB deferred the establishmen t of a panel.  Further to a second request to 
establish a panel by the EC, the DSB establishe d a panel at its meeting 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 circul ated to Members on 31 March 2000.  The panel 
considered that: 
 
• Article VI:1 of GATT 1994 applies to any situ ation where a Member ad dresses the type of 
transnational price discrimination defined in that Article.   
• on the basis of the terms of the 1916 Act, its le gislative history and its interpretation by US 
courts, the transnational price discrimination te st 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 damage s, 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 th e GATT 1994, the 1916 Act violated Article XVI:4 
of the WTO Agreement.   
 On 29 May 2000, the US notified its intention to  appeal certain issu es of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the panel. The Appell ate Body examined this appeal with that of 
WT/DS162.  The Appellate Body report was ci rculated to Members on 28 May 2000.  The 
Appellate Body upheld all of the findings and conclusions of the panel that were appealed. 
 The DSB adopted the Appe llate Body report and the Panel re port, as upheld by the Appellate 
Body report, on 26 September 2000. 
 
38. 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 Co mmunities.  On 30 June 1998, th e EC requested consultations 
with the US in respect of the alleged impositi on of countervailing duties on certain hot-rolled 
lead and bismuth carbon steel (leaded bars) from th e UK. The EC asserted 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 fo r the review period 1 January 
1995 to 20 March 1995, on the basis of subsidies which had been granted to British Steel 
Corporation (BSC).  The EC also contended that the US imposed countervailing duties on 
British Steel plc (BSplc) / British Steel Engineer ing Steels LTD (BSES) for the review period 
1 January 1996 to 31 December 1996 on the basis of subsidies granted to BSC before its 
privatization in 1988.  The EC alleged that thes e impositions of countervailing duties constitute 
a violation of Articles 1.1(b), 10, 14 a nd 19.4 of the Subsidies Agreement.   
  On 14 January 1999, the EC requested the esta blishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 1 
February 1999, the DSB deferred the establishmen t of a panel.  Further to a second request to 
establish a panel by the EC, the DSB establishe d a panel at its meeting on 17 February 1999.  
Brazil and Mexico reserved th eir third-party rights.  On 16 March 1999, the Panel was WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 96  
 
 composed.  The report of the panel was circulated to Memb ers on 23 December 1999.  The 
panel found that by imposing countervailing duties on 1994, 1995 and 1996 imports of leaded 
bars produced by UES and BSES respectively, th e 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 c ontributions" even after changes in ownership 
was rebutted in the circumstances 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 asse ts etc. acquired by those entities from BSC.  
According to the panel, the US should ther efore have examined whether the production of 
leaded bars by UES and BSplc/BSES respecti vely, and not BSC, was subsidised.   
 
 On 27 January 2000, the US notified its intentio n 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 10 May 2000.  The Appellate Body uphe ld all of the findings of the panel that 
were appealed but on one point correc ted the reasoning of the panel.   
 
 The DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the panel report, as upheld by the Appellate 
Body report, on 7 June 2000.  
 
39. WT/DS139 and WT/DS142 – Canada – Certai n Measures Affecting the Automotive 
Industry 
 Complaints by Japan and the European Communities. 
  On 3 July 1998, Japan requested consultations w ith Canada in respect of measures being taken 
by Canada in the automotive industry.  Japa n contended that under Canadian legislation 
implementing an automotive products agreement (Auto Pact) between the US and Canada, only 
a limited number of motor vehicl e manufacturers are eligible to  import vehicles into Canada 
duty free and to distribute the moto r vehicles in Canada at the wholesale and retail distribution 
levels.  Japan further contended that this duty -free treatment is contingent on two requirements: 
  (i) a Canadian value-added (CVA) content requirement that applies to both goods and 
services; and 
 (ii) a manufacturing and sales requirement .  Japan alleges that these measures are 
inconsistent with Articles I:1, III:4 a nd 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 consulta tions with Canada in respect of the same 
measures raised by Japa n in WT/DS139 and cites the same provi sions alleged to be in violation, 
except for Article XXIV of GATT 1994, which was cited by Japan but is not cited by the EC.   
  On 12 November 1998, Japan requested the establ ishment of a panel in respect of WT/DS139.  
At is meeting on 25 November 1998, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to 
requests to establish a panel by Japan and the EC, at its meeting 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 requ ested the Director-General to determine the composition of 
the Panel.  On 25 March 1999, the Panel was com posed.  The report of th e panel was circulated 
to Members on 11 February 2000.  The panel found that: 
 
• the conditions under which Canada granted its import duty exemption were inconsistent 
with Article I of GATT 1994 and not just ified under Article XXIV of GATT 1994.    WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 97 
 
 
 • the application of the CVA requirements to be  inconsistent with Article III:4 of GATT 
1994.   
• the import duty exemption constitutes a prohibited 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 c ould not justified under Article V of GATS.   
• the application of the CVA requirements constitutes a violation of Article XVII of the 
GATS.   
 
 On 2 March 2000, Canada notifie d its intention to appeal cert ain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the panel.  The Appe llate 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".   
• 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 import  duty exemption was inconsistent with the 
requirements of Arti cle II:1 of the GATS as well as the panel's findings leading to that 
conclusion. 
  The DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and th e Panel report, as modified by the Appellate 
Body report, on 19 June 2000.  
 
40. WT/DS141 – European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Cotton-
Type Bed-Linen from India 
 Complaint by India.  On 3 August 1998, India requested 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-dumping proceedings against imports of cotton- type bed-linen from India by publishing a notice of initiation in September 
1996. Provisional anti-dumping duties were impos ed 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, the 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 was 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 estab lishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 22 
September 1999, the DSB deferred the establishmen t of a panel.  Further to a second request 
to establish a panel by India, the DSB establishe d 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 th e composition of the Panel.  On 24 January 
2000, the Panel was composed.  The panel re port was circulated on 30 October 2000.  The 
panel concluded that: 
 WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 98  
 
  (i) the EC did not act inconsistently with its obligations 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;  
• considering all imports from India (and E gypt and Pakistan) as dumped in the 
analysis of injury caused by dumped imports; 
• considering information for producers comprising 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 th at the EC acted inconsistently with its 
obligations under Articles 2.4.2, 3.4, and 15 of the AD Agreement in: 
• determining the existence of margins of dumping on the basis of a methodology 
incorporating the practice of zeroing;  
• failing to evaluate all relevant factor s 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 analyzing the state of the industry; and 
• failing to explore possibilities of constr uctive remedies 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 interpretations 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 a pplied 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 administrative, 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 admi nistrative, selling and general costs and 
profits for only one other exporter or producer; and  
• in calculating the amount for profits under Article 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 investigation 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. 
 41. WT/DS146 and WT/DS175 – India – Measures Affecting the Automotive Sector 
Complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS146).  On 6 October 1998, the EC 
requested consultations with India concerni ng certain measures affecting the automotive 
sector being applied by India.  The EC stated  that the measures include the documents entitled  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 99 
 
 
 "Export and Import Policy, 1997-2002", "ITC (HS Classification) Export and Import Policy 
1997-2002" ("Classification"), and "Public No tice 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 cons olidated by these polic ies, as well as MoUs 
signed by the Indian Government with certa in manufacturers of automobiles.  The EC 
contended that: 
 
• under these measures, imports of complete  automobiles and of certain parts and 
components were subject to a system of non-automatic import licenses.  
• in accordance with Public Notice No. 60, im port 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 content and export 
balancing requirements. 
• The EC alleged violations of Articles III and XI of GATT 1994, and Article 2 of the 
TRIMs Agreement.  
 On 1 May 1999, the United States requested cons ultations (WT/DS175) with India in respect 
of certain Indian measures affecting trade and investment in the motor vehicle sector.  The 
United States contended that the measures in  question required manufacturing firms in the 
motor vehicle sector to:  (i) achieve specified levels of local content; (ii) achieve a neutralization of foreign excha nge by balancing the va lue of certain imports 
with the value 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 measu res 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 impor t licenses for certain motor vehicle parts and 
components.  The United States considered that  these measures violate the obligations 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 Pane l.  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 establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 23 October 2000, the DSB deferred the establishmen t 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 ma ndate in the framework of the abovementioned 
case WT/DS175 , the DSB decided to join the pane l with the already established panel in that 
case pursuant to Article 9.1 of the DSU.  Japan  reserved its third-party rights.  On 14 
November 2000, the US requested the Director-G eneral to determine the composition of the 
Panel.  On 24 November 2000, the Panel was composed. 
 
On 21 December 2001, the Panel circulated its report to the Members.  The Panel concluded that:  
• India had acted inconsistently with its ob ligations under Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 
by imposing on automotive manufacturers an obligation to use a certain proportion of WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 100  
 
 local parts and components in the manufacture of cars and automotive vehicles 
("indigenization" condition); 
• India had acted inconsistently with its oblig ations under Article XI of the GATT 1994 by 
imposing on automotive manufacturers an ob ligation to balance any importation of 
certain kits and components with exports of equivalent value ("trade balancing" 
condition); and, 
• India had acted inconsistently with its ob ligations under Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 
by imposing, in the context of the trade bala ncing condition, an obligation to offset the 
amount of any purchases of previously importe d 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 they 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 Ar ticles III:4 and XI:1 of the GATT had been 
brought into 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 licen sing 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 procedural history of the case.  At the 
DSB meeting on 5 April 2002, the US commended I ndia'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 justifie d.  Despite its decision 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 
Report and consider the adoption of Section VIII only at its next meeting.  The EC responded 
that the Reports should be adopted unconditionally by the parties, thus there was no 
justification for India's request.  The DSB proceed ed with the adoption in full of the Appellate 
Body and Panel reports.   
42. WT/DS152 – United States – Sections 301-310 of the Trade Act of 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 particular sections 306 and 305 of this Act. 
The EC alleged that: 
 
• by imposing strict time limits within which unilateral determinations must be made and 
trade sanctions taken, sections 306 and 305 of the Trade Act do not allow the US to comply with the rules of the DSU in situa tions where a prior multilateral ruling under the  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 101 
 
 
 DSU on conformity of measures take n pursuant to implementation of DSB 
recommendations has not been adopted by the DSB. 
• the DSU procedure resulting in a multilateral finding, even if initiated immediately after 
the end of the reasonable period of time for implementation, 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 Tr ade Act, as amended, and in particular 
sections 306 and 305 of the Act, are inconsiste nt with Articles 3, 21, 22 and 23 of the 
DSU; Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement; and Articles I, II, III, VIII and XI of GATT 1994.   
• the Trade Act nullifies and impairs benefits ac cruing, 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 establishment 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 establishe d a panel at its meeting on 2 March 1999.  
Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Hong 
Kong, India, Israel, Jamaica, Japan, Korea, St . Lucia and Thailand reserved their third-party 
rights. On 24 March 1999, the EC requested the Director-General to determine the 
composition of the Panel.  On 31 March 1999, the Panel was composed. The report of the panel was circulated to Members on 22 Dece mber 1999.  The Panel found that Sections 
304(a)(2)(A), 305(a) and 306(b) of the US Trad e Act of 1974 were not inconsistent with 
Article 23.2(a) or (c) of the DSU or with an y 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 statements by the US to the panel.  The 
panel stated therefore that should those undert akings be repudiated or in any other way 
removed, its findings of conformity would no longer be warranted. The DSB adopted the 
panel report at its meeti ng on 27 January 2000.  
 
43. WT/DS155 – Argentina – Measures on the Export of Bovine Hides and the Import of 
Finished Leather 
 Complaint by the European Communities.  On 24 December 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 the de facto  export 
prohibition on raw and semi-tanned bovine hides (which is implemented in part through the 
authorization granted by the Argentinian authorities to the Argentinian tanning industry to participate in customs control procedures of hi des 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 impartia l administration of laws and regulations) to 
the extent that personnel of the Argentinian Ch amber for the tanning industry are authorized 
to assist Argentinian customs authorities.  Th e EC also claimed that the "additional value 
added tax" of 9 per cent on impor ts of products into Argentina and the "advance turnover tax" 
of 3 per cent based on the price of importe d 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 lik e, 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 pa nel.  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 WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 102  
 
 2000, the Panel was composed.  The Panel circ ulated its report on 19 December 2000.  The 
Panel concluded that: 
 
• it has not been proved that Resolution ( ANA) No. 2235/96 is inconsistent 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 inconsis tent with Article III:2, first sentence, of 
the GATT 1994; 
• General Resolution (DGI) No. 3543/92 is inconsis tent 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.  
44. WT/DS156 – Guatemala – Definitive Anti-dum ping Measure regarding Grey Portland 
Cement from Mexico 
 Complaint by Mexico.  On 5 January 1999, Me xico 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 leading thereto.  Mexico 
alleged that the definitive anti-dumping measure is in consistent 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 pa nel.  Further to a second request to establish 
a panel by Mexico, the DSB established a pa nel at its meeting on 22 September 1999.  
Ecuador, El Salvador, the EC, Honduras and the US reserved their third-party rights. On 12 
October 1999, Mexico requested the Director-G eneral to determine the composition of the 
panel.  On 2 November 1999, the Panel was co mposed.  The panel report was circulated on 
24 October 2000. The panel concluded that Guat emala'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 sufficient evidence of dumping and threat of 
injury to initiate an investigation, is incons istent with Article 5.3 of the AD Agreement;  
• Guatemala's determination that there was sufficient evidence of dumping and threat of 
injury to initiate an investigation and conseque nt failure to reject the application for anti-
dumping duties by Cementos Progreso is in consistent 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 requirement s 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 te xt of the application to Mexico and Cruz 
Azul is inconsistent with Artic le 6.1.3 of the AD Agreement;   WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 103 
 
 
 • Guatemala's failure to grant Mexico access to th e file of the investigation is inconsistent 
with Articles 6.1.2 and 6.4 of the AD Agreement;  
• Guatemala's failure to timely make Ceme ntos Progreso's 19 December 1996 submission 
available to Cruz Azul until 8 January 1997 is inconsistent with Article 6.1.2 of the AD 
Agreement;  
• Guatemala's failure to provide two copies of the file of the investigation as requested by 
Cruz Azul is inconsistent with Article 6.1.2 of the AD Agreement;  
• Guatemala's extension of the period of inv estigation requested by Cementos Progreso 
without providing Cruz Azul with a full opportu nity 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 Progr eso'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 Progreso'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 d ecision whether to apply definitive measures" 
is inconsistent with Article 6.9 of the AD Agreement; 
• Guatemala's recourse to "best information ava ilable" 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 im ports by MATINSA in its determination of 
injury and causality is inconsistent with Ar ticles 3.1, 3.2 and 3.5 of the AD Agreement; 
and  
• Guatemala's failure to evaluate all relevant factors 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.  45. WT/DS160 – United States – Section 110(5) of the 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 resp ect 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 permits, under certain 
conditions, the playing of radio and television musi c in public places (bars, shops, restaurants, 
etc.) without the payment of a royalty fee.  The EC  considered that this statute is inconsistent 
with US obligations under Article 9(1) of th e TRIPS Agreement, which requires Members to 
comply with Articles 1-21 of the Berne Convention.   
  The dispute centered on the compatibility of tw o exemptions provided for in Section 110(5) 
of the US Copyright Act with Article 13 of the TRIPS Agreement, 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 no t unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests 
of the right holder:   
 
•
 The so-called "business" exemption, provided fo r 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 drinking establishments and by retail 
establishments, provided that their size does not exceed a certain square footage limit.  It WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 104  
 
 also allows such amplification of music br oadcasts by establishments above this square 
footage limit, provided that certain equipment limitations are met.   
• The so-called "homestyle" exemption, provi ded for in sub-paragraph (A) of Section 
110(5), allows small restaurants and retail outle ts 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 establis hment of a panel.  At its meeting on 28 April 
1999, the DSB deferred the establishment of a pa nel.  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 July 1999, 
the EC made a request to the Director-in-Charge  to determine the composition of the Panel.  
On 6 August 1999, the Panel was composed.  Th e report of the panel was circulated to 
Members on 15 June 2000.  The panel found that: 
 
• the "business" exemption provided for in sub-pa ragraph (B) of Secti on 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 11 bis(1)(iii) and 11(1)(ii) of the Berne Convention 
(1971) as incorporated into the TRIPS Agreement by Article 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 11 bis(1)(iii) and 11(1)(ii) of the Berne Convention (1971) as 
incorporated into the TRIPS Agreement by Ar ticle 9.1 of that Agreement.  Here, the 
panel noted certain limits imposed on the be neficiaries 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.   
 
46. WT/DS161 and WT/DS169 – Korea – Measures Affecting 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 scheme that allegedly 
discriminates against imported beef by inter alia , confining sales of imported beef to 
specialised stores (dual retail system), limiting the manner of its display, and otherwise constraining 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 Livestock Producers Ma rketing Organization ("LPMO"), and provides 
domestic support to the cattle industry in Kor ea 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, ther eby denying national treatment to beef imports, 
and that the support to the domestic industry amounts to domestic subsidies that contravene 
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 Agre ement on Agriculture; and Articles 1 and 3 of 
the Import Licensing Agreement.   
  On 13 April 1999, Australia requested consultati ons with Korea on the same basis as the US 
request.   
  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 105 
 
 
  On 15 April 1999, the US requested the establishment of a panel in respect of WT/DS161.  At 
its meeting on 28 April 1999, the DSB deferred th e 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 26 May 1999.  Australia, Canada and New Zeala nd reserved their third-party rights.  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 rights.  At the request of Korea, the DSB agreed that, pursuant to DSU Article 9.1, this 
complaint would be examined by the same pane l established in respect of WT/DS161.  On 4 
August 1999, the Panel was composed.  The repor t 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 pe riod until 1 January 2001, by which date 
they had to be eliminated or otherwi se brought into conformity with the WTO 
Agreement.   
• the requirement that the supply of beef fro m the LPMO's wholesale market be limited to 
specialised imported beef stores and that t hose stores bear a special sign "Specialized 
Imported Beef Store" was in violation of Article 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 other 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 dischar ge practices between 
November 1997 and the end of May 1998 constituted 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 we re 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 beef from grass-fed cattle 
less favourably than provided for in Ko rea's Schedule, which was in breach of 
Article II:1(a) of the GATT 1994.  
• in addition, Korea's domestic support fo r 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 Total AMS) for 1997 and 1998 exceeded 
Korea's commitment levels, as specified in Secti on 1, Part IV of its Schedule, contrary to 
Article 3.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.   
  On 11 September 2000, Korea notified its intentio n to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations deve loped by the panel.  On 11 December 2000, the report of th e Appellat e Body 
was circulated.  The Appellate Body reversed  the Panel'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 w ith Article 1(a)(ii) and Annex 3 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture; and reversed, therefor e, the Panel's following conclusions, 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  WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 106  
 
 • that Korea's total domestic support for 1997 and 1998 exceeded Korea's commitment 
levels contrary to Ar ticle 3.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
  The Appellate Body was unable, in view of the insufficient 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 suppor t for 1997 and 1998 exceeded Korea's 
commitment levels contrary to Article  3.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
 
 At its meeting of 10 January 2001, the DSB a dopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel 
report, as modified by th e Appellate Body report. 
 
47. WT/DS162 – United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 
 Complaint by Japan.  On 10 February 1999, Jap an requested 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 th e 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 companies.  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 establishm ent of a panel.  At its meeting on 16 June 
1999, the DSB deferred the establishment of a pa nel.  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 circulat ed to Members on 29 May 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.  The panel then found that, on the 
basis of the terms of the 1916 Act, its legislativ e history and its interpre tation by US courts, the 
transnational price disc rimination 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 damage s, fines or imprisonment, instead of anti-
dumping duties, the 1916 Act violated Articl e VI:2 of the GATT 1994 and Article 18.1 of 
the Anti-Dumping Agreement;  
• by not providing for a number of procedural requirements 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 Articl es 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 th e Anti-Dumping Agreement.   
 
On 29 May 2000, the US notified its intention to  appeal certain issu es of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the panel. The Appell ate Body examined this appeal with that of  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 107 
 
 
 WT/DS136.   The Appellate Body report wa s circulated to Members on 28 May 2000.  The 
Appellate Body upheld all of the findings and co nclusions of the panel that were appealed.   
 The DSB adopted the Appe llate Body report and the Panel re port, as upheld by the Appellate 
Body report, on 26 September 2000. 
 
48. WT/DS163 – Korea – Measures Aff ecting 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 concer ned with the procurement of airport 
construction in Korea.  The US claimed that such practices were inconsistent with Korea's 
obligations under the Agreement on Govern ment Procurement (GPA). These include 
practices relating to qualification for bidding as a prime contractor, domestic partnering, and 
the absence of access to challenge procedures th at 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 Kor ea's obligations in Appendix I of the GPA, 
and pursuant to Article I(1) of the GPA, apply 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 pa nel.  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 Memb ers on 1 May 2000.  The panel found that: 
 
• the entities conducting procurement for the pr oject at issue were not covered entities 
under Korea's Appendix I of the GPA and were not otherwise covered by Korea'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 in itially been 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 consider ed that there was notice of th e error and the US should at 
least have conducted further inquiries in this re gard before the negotiations were ended.   
• the US had not demonstrated that benefits reasonably expected to accrue under the GPA, 
or in the negotiations resulting in Korea's accession to the GPA, were nullified or 
impaired by measures taken by Korea (whether or not in conflict 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.  
49. WT/DS165 – United States – Import Measures on Certain Products from the European 
Communities 
 Complaint by the European Communities.  On 4 March 1999, the EC re quested consultations 
with the US in respect of the US decision,  effective as of 3 March 1999, to withhold 
liquidation on imports from the EC of a seri es of products together valued 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  2 March 1999, the arbitrators charged with 
determining the level of suspension of con cessions, requested by the United States in 
response to the failure by the EC to implemen t 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 unable to  issue their report within the 60-day period WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 108  
 
 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 the 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 alleged 
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 consultations 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 pa nel.  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-G eneral to determine the composition of the 
Panel.  On 8 October 1999, the Panel was compos ed.  The report of the panel was circulated 
to Members 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 th e 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 toge ther with Article 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 a nd fees 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 me aning 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 circumstan ces, 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 intentio n to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the panel. The re port of the Appellate B ody was circulated on 
11 December 2000.  The Appellate Body: 
 
• concluded that the Panel erred by stating th at the WTO-consistency of a measure taken 
by a Member to comply with recommendations and rulings of the DSB can be determined by arbitrators appointed under Artic le 22.6 of the DSU, and, thus, concluded 
that the Panel's statements on th is 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, th at Member's measure is WTO compatible 
(it was explicitly authorised by the DSB)", a nd, thus, concluded that this statement has 
no legal effect.   WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 109 
 
 
 • reversed the Panel's findings that the incr eased 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 M easure, the measure at issue in this dispute, 
is no longer in existence, the Appellate Body  did not make any recommendation to the DSB 
pursuant to Article 19.1 of the DSU.  
  At its meeting of 10 January 2001, the DSB a dopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel 
report, as modified by th e Appellate Body report. 
 50. WT/DS166 – United States – Definitive Safegu ard Measure on Imports of Wheat Gluten 
from the European Communities 
 Complaint by the European Communities. On 17 March 1999, the EC requested consultations 
with the US in respect of definitive safegua rd 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 da te, by the US President, under which the US 
imposed definitive safeguard measures in the fo rm of a quantitative limitation on imports of 
wheat gluten from the EC, effective as of 1 J une 1998.  The EC considered these measures to 
be in violation of Articles 2, 4, 5 and 12 of the Agreement on Safeguards; Article 4.2 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture; and Artic les I and XIX of GATT 1994.   
 
 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 pa nel.  Further to a second request to establish 
a panel, the DSB established a panel at its m eeting 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 Me mbers 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 Artic le 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 "i ncreased quantities" and serious injury.   
 
 (ii) the definitive safeguard measure impos ed by the US on certain imports of wheat 
gluten based on the US investigation a nd determination was inconsistent with 
Articles 2.1 and 4 of the Safeguards Agreement in that  
 
• the causation analysis applied by the USIT C did not ensure that  injury caused by 
other factors was not attributed to imports and  
• imports from Canada (a NAFTA partner) we re 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 increased imports (following a separate inquiry concerning whether imports from Canada accounted 
for a "substantial share" of total imports and whether they "contributed importantly" to the "serious injury" caused by total imports).   
 
 (iii) The panel further concluded that the US  failed 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.   WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 110  
 
  
 (iv) in notifying its decision to take the measure only after the measure was implemented, 
the US did not make timely notification un der Article 12.1(c).  For the same reason, 
the US violated the obligation of Article 12.3 to provide adequate opportunity for prior consultations on the measure.   
 
 (v) the US therefore also violated its obl igation under Article 8.1 of the Safeguards 
Agreement to endeavour to maintain a subs tantially equivalent level of concessions 
and other obligations to that existing under the GATT 1994 between it and the exporting 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 cove red in the Panel Report and certain legal 
interpretations developed by the Panel. Th e 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 Safegua rds 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 "relevant factors" listed in Article 4.2(a) of that Agreement as well as any other "factors" which were clearly  raised 
before the competent authorities as relevant by  the interested parties in the domestic 
investigation;  
• 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 inconsistently 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 Agreement 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, and, 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 Ar ticle 11 of the DSU in concluding that the 
USITC had "considered industry productivit y as required 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 cont ent of wheat and the price of wheat gluten 
as a "relevant factor", under Article 4.2(a) of the Safeguards Agreement, during the post-
1994 period of investigation;  and,  
• the Panel did not act inconsistently in dec lining to draw "adverse" inferences from the 
refusal of the US to provide certain allege dly confidential information requested from it 
by the Panel under Article 13.1 of the DSU;   WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 111 
 
 
 • the Panel acted inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU in finding that "the USITC 
Report  provides an adequate, reasoned and reasonabl e explanation with respect to 'profits 
and losses'" and, therefore, reversed this finding;  and found 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 al so under Article 5 of the Safeguards 
Agreement and Article I of the GATT 1994.  
  At its meeting of 19 January 2001, the DSB a dopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel 
report, as modified by th e Appellate Body report.  
 
51. WT/DS170 – Canada – Patent Protection Term 
 Complaint by the United States.  On 6 May 1999 , the US requested consultations with Canada 
in respect of the term of protection granted to  patents that were f iled in Canada before 
1 October 1989.  The US contended that the TRIPS Agreement obligates 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 
applications filed before 1 October 1989 is 17  years from the date on which the patent is 
issued.  The US contended that this situation is  inconsistent with Articles 33, 65 and 70 of the 
TRIPS Agreement.   
 
 On 15 July 1999, the US requested the establis hment of a panel.  At its meeting on 26 July 
1999, the DSB deferred the establishment of a pa nel.  Further to a second request to establish 
a panel by the US, the DSB established a pane l at its meeting on 22 September 1999.  On 13 
October 1999, the US requested the Director-G eneral to determine the composition of the 
Panel.  On 22 October 1999, the Panel was com posed.  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 Agre ement, 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 ma ke available a term of protection that does 
not end before 20 years from the date of filing 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 effectivel y equivalent to the 20-year term prescribed 
by the TRIPS Agreement because of average pendency periods for patents, informal and 
statutory delays etc.  
 
 On 19 June 2000, Canada notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the panel. The Ap pellate Body report was circulated to Members 
on 18 September 2000. The Appellate Body upheld all of the findings and conclusions of the 
panel that were appealed.  
 
 The DSB adopted the Ap pellate Body report and the Panel re port, as upheld by the Appellate 
Body report, on 12 October 2000. 
 WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 112  
 
 52. WT/DS176 – United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act 
Complaint by the European Communities and its Member 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 la w on 21 October 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 ha ve been confiscated under Cuban law.   
• This law provided that no US court sha ll recognize or enforce any assertion of such 
rights.  
• Section 211 US Omnibus Appropriations Act was not in conformity with the US' 
obligations under the TRIPS Agreement, notab ly its Article 2 in conjunction with the 
Paris Convention, Article 3, Article 4, Ar ticles 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 reserved their third-party 
rights. On 17 October 2000, the EC and its me mber States requested the Director-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.  The Panel rejected most of the claims by 
the EC and their Member States except that rela ting to the inconsistency of Section 211(a)(2) 
of the Omnibus Appropriations Act with Article 42 of the TRIPS Agreement.  In this regard, 
the panel concluded that this Section is incons istent with the relevant TRIPs Article on the 
grounds that it limits, under certain circumstanc es, right holders' e ffective access to and 
availability of civil judicial procedures. 
 
On 4 October 2001, the EC and its Member Stat es notified their decision to appeal certain 
issues of law and legal interpre tations developed 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 trademar ks, 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  a nd the Paris Convention for the Protection of 
Industrial Property, thereby reversing the Panel's findings to the contrary; 
• reversed the Panel's finding that Section 211(a )(2) is inconsistent with 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 c onjunction with Article 6quinquies A(1) of the 
Paris Convention, and Articles 15 and 16 of th e  TRIPS 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 names 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 r espect to trademarks.  It also found that 
Sections 211(a)(2) and (b) are not inconsistent  with Article 2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement 
in conjunction with Article 8 of the Paris Convention (1967). 
 
At its meeting on 2 January 2002, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel 
report, as upheld by the Appellate Body report.  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 113 
 
 
  
53. WT/DS177 and 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 July 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 Tr ade 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 Agre ement on Safeguards, and Articles I and XIX of 
GATT 1994.   
  On 23 July 1999, Australia requested consultatio ns with the US in respect of a definitive 
safeguard measure imposed by the US on impor ts of lamb (WT/DS178).  Australia 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 of fresh, 
chilled, or frozen lamb meat from Australia ef fective from 22 July 1999.  Australia contended 
that this measure is inconsiste nt with Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 11 and 12 of the Agreement on 
Safeguards, and Articles I, II and XIX of GATT 1994.   
  On 14 October 1999, New Zealand and Australia requested the establishment of a panel.  At 
its meeting on 27 October 1999, the DSB deferred th e establishment 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/DS1 78.  Canada, the EC, Iceland and Japan 
reserved their third-party rights.  Australia reser ved its third-party rights in relation to the 
complaint by New Zealand, while New Zealand rese rved its third-party rights in relation 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 Artic le 4.1(c) of the Agreement on Safeguards 
because the USITC, in the lamb meat inv estigation, 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 USITC's analytical approach to determining 
the existence of a threat of serious injury, in  particular with respect to the prospective 
analysis and the time-period used, is inconsis tent with Article 4.1(b) of the Agreement on 
Safeguards;  
• the complainants failed to establish that the US ITC's analytical approach to evaluating all 
of the factors listed in Article 4.2(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards when determining 
whether increased imports threatened to cause serious injury with respect to the domestic 
industry as defined in the investigation is  inconsistent with that provision;  
• the US has acted inconsistently with Artic le 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 industry as defined in the 
investigation;  
• the US has acted inconsistently with Artic le 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 increased imports and threat of 
serious injury, in that the determination did not establish that increased imports were by WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 114  
 
 themselves a necessary and sufficient cause of th reat of serious injury, and in that the 
determination did not ensure that threat of serious injury caused by "other factors" was 
not attributed to increased imports;  
• by virtue of the above violations of Articl e 4 of the Agreement on Safeguards, the US 
also has acted inconsistently with Artic le 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 interpretations 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 in consistently 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 States 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 made  a determination regarding the "domestic 
industry" on the basis of data that was not sufficiently representative of that industry;  but modified the Panel's ultimate finding that th e 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 st andard of review, set forth in Article 11 of 
the DSU, which is appropriate to its examina tion of claims made under Article 4.2 of the 
Agreement on Safeguards ;  but concluded that the Panel erred in applying that standard in 
examining the claims made concerning the USITC's determination that there existed a 
threat of serious injury; and found, moreove r, that the 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 th ere 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 Panel'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 lin k 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 ec onomy 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 conditio nal appeals of Australia and New Zealand 
relating to Articles I, II and XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994, and 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 the Panel Report, as modified by the 
Appellate Body Report, on 16 May 2001. 
 54. 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 requested 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 January 1999 and 
8 June 1999 respectively.  Korea considered that several errors were made by the US in those  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 115 
 
 
 determinations which resulted in erroneous findings and deficient conclusions as well as the 
imposition, calculation and collection of anti-dum ping margins which are incompatible with 
the obligation of the US under the provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI 
of GATT 1994 and in particular, but not necessar ily exclusively, Artic le 2, Article 6 and 
Article 12 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  Korea believed that the US did not act in 
conformity with the cited provisions, among others, in its treatment of the following:  certain 
US sales made to a bankrupt company;  the calcu lation of two distinct exchange rate periods 
for export sales;  and currency conversion for cer tain normal value sales made in US dollars. 
  On 14 October 1999, Korea requested the estab lishment 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-part y 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 incons istently with its obligations 
under Article 2.4.1, Article 2.4 chapeau (" fair comparison"), 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 inconsisten tly with Article 2.4.1 of the 
AD Agreement  by performing a currency convers ion that was not required.  
  (ii) with respect to the treatment of unpaid sales, the US:  
• acted inconsistently with its obligat ions under Article 2.4 chapeau of the
 
AD Agreement  in both the Plate  and Sheet  investigations by making allowances 
in respect of sales through unaffiliated im porters which were not permissible 
allowances for differences affecting price comparability; 
• acted inconsistently with its obligat ions under Article 2.4 chapeau of the 
AD Agreement  in both the Plate and Sheet investigations by making allowances 
in respect of sales through an affiliate d 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 all 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 senten ce of the chapeau of Article 2.4 of the 
AD Agreement ("fair comparison").  
 
 (iv) to the extent that the US has acted inconsistently 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/23 
Page 116  
 
 55. WT/DS184 – United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel 
Products from Japan 
 Complaint by Japan.  On 18 November 1999, Jap an requested consultations with the US in 
respect of the preliminary and final determina tions 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 Japanese complaint also concerned certain provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930 and related regulations.  Japan claimed vi olations 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 estab lishment 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 establishe d a panel at its meeting on 20 March 2000.  
Brazil, Canada, Chile, the EC and Korea reserve d their third-party rights.  On 9 May 2000, 
Japan requested the Director-General to determ ine the composition of the Panel.  On 24 May 
2000, the Panel was composed.  The Panel circul ated its report on 28 February 2001.  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 1930, as amended, which mandates that  
USDOC exclude only margins based entirely on  facts available in determining an all 
others rate, is inconsistent with Article 9.4 of the AD Agreement, and that therefore the 
US has acted inconsistently with its oblig ations under Article 18.4 of the AD Agreement 
and Article XVI:4 of the Marrakesh Agreemen t by failing to bring 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 th e calculation of normal value on the basis 
of the "arm's length" test. In addition, in li ght of the findings above, the panel concluded 
that the replacement of those sales with  sales to unaffiliated downstream purchasers was 
inconsistent with Article 2.1 of the AD Agreement.  
• With respect to those of Japan's claims not addressed above the panel concluded: (1) that 
the claim was not within its terms of refere nce ("general practice"  concerning adverse 
facts available; "general practice" of ex cluding certain home-market sales from the 
calculation of normal value), or (2) that, in li ght of considerations of judicial economy, it 
is neither necessary nor appropriate to make findings.  
 On 25 April 2001, the US 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.  
The Appellate Body circulated its Report on 24 Ju ly 2001.  In this regard, the Appellate Body 
upheld the Panel's findings except for the following:  
• It reversed the Panel's finding regarding the inconsistency with Article 2.1 of the Anti-
dumping Agreement of the US's methodology fo r calculating the normal value as regards 
the using of certain downstream sales made by  an investigated exporters' affiliates to 
dependent purchasers;  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 117 
 
 
 • It found that there was insufficient factual reco rd 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  did not act inconsistently with the Anti-
dumping Agreement in its application of the captive production 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 sai d agreement, between dumped imports and 
material injury to that industry; but found th at there was insufficien t factual record to 
allow completion of the analysis of Japan's claim on causation; 
  The DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report, as modified by the 
Appellate Body Report, on 23 August 2001. 
 
56. WT/DS189 – Argentina – Definitive Anti-Dum ping Measures on Imports of Ceramic 
Floor Tiles from Italy 
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 26 January 2000, the EC requested 
consultations with Argentina in respect of  Argentina's definitive anti-dumping measures on 
imports of ceramic floor tiles from Italy im posed on 12 November 1999.  The EC claimed 
that the Argentinian investigating authorit y without justification disregarded all the 
information on normal value and on export pri ces provided by the exporters included in the 
sample; failed to calculate an individual dumping margin for each of the exporters included in 
the sample; failed to make due allowance for the differences in physical characteristics 
between the models exported to Argentina and t hose sold in Italy; and failed to inform the 
Italian exporters of the essential facts concer ning 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.   
On 7 November 2000, the EC requested the estab lishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 26 
September 2000, the DSB deferred the establishmen t of a panel.  Further to a second request 
to establish a panel by the EC, the DSB estab lished a panel at its meeting on 17 November 
2000 on the basis of the EC's reduced compla int 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 Artic le 6.8 and Annex II of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement by disregarding in large part the information provided by the exporter for the 
determination of the normal value and expor t price, and this without 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 under consideration which form the basis for 
the decision whether to apply definitive measures. 
 WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 118  
 
  On 5 November 2001, the DSB adopted the Panel Report. 
 
57. WT/DS192 – United States – Transitional Sa feguard Measure on Combed Cotton Yarn 
from Pakistan 
 Complaint by Pakistan.  On 3 April 2000, Pakistan requested consultations with the US in 
respect of a transitional safeguard measure a pplied by the United 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 accordan ce 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 whether the situation 
called for a restraint had failed to produce a mutu ally satisfactory solution.  In April 1999, the 
TMB examined the 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 ATC, the United States notified the TMB that it considered itself unable to conform to the 
recommendations issued by the TMB.  D espite 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 requirements 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 establis hment of a panel.  At its meeting on 18 May 
2000, the DSB deferred the establishment of a pa nel.  Further to a second request to establish 
a panel by Pakistan, the DSB established a pane l 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.  The Panel concluded that the transitional 
safeguard measure (quantitative restriction) im posed 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 produ cers for their own use from the scope of the 
"domestic industry producing like and/or di rectly 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 Artic les 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 clai ms, the Panel found that Pakistan did not establish that the 
measure at issue was inconsistent with the US obligations under Article 6 of the ATC. 
Specifically, the Panel found that: (a)  Pakistan did not establish that the US determination of 
serious damage was not justified based on the data used by the US investigating authority; (b)  
Pakistan did not establish that the US determ ination of serious damage was not justified 
regarding the evaluation by the US investig ating authority of establishments that ceased  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 119 
 
 
 producing combed cotton yarn; (c) Pakistan did not establish that the US determinations of 
serious damage and causation thereof were not justified based upon an inappropriately chosen 
period of investigation 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 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 
5 September 2001, the Appellate Body informed  the DSB that it would 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 uphe ld the Panel's overall conclusion that the 
transitional safeguard measure taken by the Unite d States with respect to imports of combed 
cotton yarn from Pakistan was inconsistent with  the ATC.  In particular, the Appellate Body 
upheld the Panel's findings that, in taking safegua rd action with respect to imports of yarn 
from Pakistan, the US: (a) failed to define properly the relevant "domestic industry" 
producing yarn; and (b) failed to examine the e ffect of imports of yarn from other major 
suppliers individually when attributing serio us damage to imports from Pakistan.  
Furthermore, the Appellate Body  concluded that the Panel shoul d not have considered data 
which were not in existence at the time when  the US determined that serious damage had 
been caused to the domestic industry.  It declin ed to rule on the broader issue of whether an 
importing Member must attribute serious damage  to all Members whose exports contributed 
to that damage and concluded therefore that th e Panel's interpretation of this broader issue 
was of no legal effect.    
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and the 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 Agreements, chai red by the Department of Commerce, had 
directed the US Customs Service to eliminat e the limit on imports of combed cotton yarn 
from Pakistan.  This action was effective from 9 November 2001. 
 
58. WT/DS194 – United States – Measures Treating Export Restraints As Subsidies 
 Request by Canada.  On 19 May 2000, Canada requested 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 rest ricted product if the domestic price of the 
restricted product is affected by the restrain t.  The measures at issue included provisions 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 Explana tion 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  inconsistent with US obligations 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 practi ces that are not subsidies within the 
meaning of Article 1.1 of the SCM Agreement.   WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 120  
 
 • 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 establishm ent of a panel.  At its meeting on 4 August 
2000, the DSB deferred the establishment of a pa nel.  Further to a second request to establish 
a panel by Canada, the DSB established a pane l at its meeting on 11 September 2000.  
Australia, the EC and India reserved their thir d-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 disput e cannot constitute government-entrusted or 
government-directed provision of goods in th e sense 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 are 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. 
 The DSB adopted the Panel Report on 23 August 2001. 
 
59. WT/DS202 – United States – Definitive Sa feguard Measures on Imports of Circular 
Welded Carbon Quality Line Pipe 
Complaint by Korea.  On 13 June 2000, Korea requested consultations with the United States 
in respect of concerns the definitive safegua rd measure 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 Un ited States announced that the proposed date of 
introduction of the measure was 1 March 2000 and that the measure was expected to remain 
in effect for 3 years and 1 day.  Korea consid ered that the US procedures and determinations 
that led to the imposition of the safeguard me asure as well as the measure itself contravened 
various provisions contained in the Safeguard s Agreement and the GATT 1994.  In particular, 
Korea considers that the measure is inconsiste nt with the United St ates' 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 establishe d a panel at its meeting of 23 October 2000. 
Australia, Canada, EC, Japan and Mexico reserve d 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 re port to the Members.  The Panel concluded 
that the US line pipe measure was imposed in consistently with certain provisions of GATT 
1994 and/or the Safeguards Agreement, in particular:   WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 121 
 
 
 • 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 conclusi on either (i) that increased imports have 
caused serious injury, or (ii) that increased imports are thr eatening 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 obligations under Article XIX by failing to 
demonstrate the existence of unforeseen developm ents prior to the application of the line 
pipe measure; 
• the US has acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 12.3 by failing to 
provide an adequate opportunity for prio r consultations with Members having a 
substantial interest as exporters of line pipe; 
• the US has acted inconsistently with its ob ligations under Article 8.1 to endeavour to 
maintain a substantially equivalent le vel of concessions and other obligations; 
 
All other claims by Korea were rejected by the Panel.  The Panel also declined Korea's 
request for the Panel to find that the US saf eguard measure should 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.   However, 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 February 2002.  
On 15 February 2002, the Appellate Body ci rculated 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 inconsiste ntly 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 ob ligation under Article 8.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards
 
to endeavour to maintain a substantially equivalent 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 ag ainst 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 obliga tions under Articles 3.1 and 4.2(c) of the 
Agreement on Safeguards  by failing to include in its published report a finding or 
reasoned conclusion either (1) that increased imports have caused serious injury, or (2) 
that increased imports are threat ening to cause serious injury;  WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 122  
 
 • 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 Articles I, XIII:1 and XIX of GATT 1994 by exempting Canada and Mexico from the line pipe measures, 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 the 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 measure was necessary to 
prevent or remedy serious injury and to facilitate adjustment;  
• 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 inju ry and to facilitate adjustment", and finds 
that the United States applied the line pi pe measure beyond the "extent necessary to 
prevent or remedy serious injury and to facilitate adjustment". 
  
On 8 March 2002, the DSB adopted the Appella te Body Report and the Panel Report, as 
modified by the Appellate Body Report.    
60. 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 a nd 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 h as adopted or maintained anti-competitive and 
discriminatory regulatory measures, tolerated certain privately-established market access 
barriers, and failed to take needed regulator y action in Mexico's basic and value-added 
telecommunications sectors.  The US claimed that Mexico had, for example:   
• enacted and maintained laws, regulations, ru les, and other measures that deny or limit 
market access, national treatment, and a dditional commitments for service suppliers 
seeking to provide basic and value-added te lecommunications services into and within 
Mexico; 
• failed to issue and enact regul ations, permits, or other measu res 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 a dditional commitments for service suppliers 
seeking to provide basic and value-added te lecommunications services into and within 
Mexico; 
• failed to regulate, control and prevent its  major 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  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 123 
 
 
 • 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 networ ks and services on reasonable and non-
discriminatory terms and conditions for the supply of basic and value-added 
telecommunications services.   
  The United States considered that the alleged action and inaction on the part of Mexico may 
be inconsistent with Mexico's GATS commitm ents and obligations, including Articles VI, 
XVI, and XVII; Mexico's additional commitme nts under Article XVIII as set forth in the 
Reference Paper inscribed in Mexico's Schedul e of Specific Commitments, including Sections 
1, 2, 3, and 5; and the GATS Annex on Tel ecommunications, including Sections 4 and 5.  
  On 10 November 2000, the United States request ed the 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 aff ecting trade in telecommunication services.  At 
its meeting on 12 December 2000, the DSB defe rred establishment of a panel.  On 13 
February 2002, the United States requested the est ablishment of a panel.  In particular, the 
United 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 deferre d 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 Ni caragua reserved their third-party rights to 
participate in the proceedings.  On 18 April 2002, I ndia joined as a third party to the dispute.  
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 Apr il 2002, Brazil joined as a third party. On 16 
August 2002, the US requested the Director General to determine the composition of the 
panel.  On 26 August 2002, the panel was composed.   
 
On 13 March 2003, the Chairman of the Panel in formed the DSB that it would not be possible 
to complete its work in six months due to th e time needed for transl ation into Spanish and 
English of all relevant documents and the complexity of the issues involved.  The Panel expected to complete its work in August 2003.  On 6 August 2003, the Chairman 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  WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 124  
 
 • Mexico failed to ensure reasonable and non-discriminatory access to and use of 
telecommunications networks,  contrary to  Article 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 vi olate its obligations because it had not taken 
commitments for these services.   
 On 1 June 2004, the DSB adopted the Panel Report.   
 
61. 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:  
  (i) 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;  
 (ii) interpretation and use of provisions rela ting to facts available in the anti-dumping and 
countervailing duty investigations by DOC; and 
 (iii) determination and interpretation by th e US International Trade Commission (ITC) of 
negligibility, cumulation and material injury caused by the said Indian steel imports.  
 
 India considered that these determinations are erroneous and based on deficient procedures 
contained in various provisions of US anti- dumping and countervailing duty law.  According 
to India, these determinations and provisions ra ise questions concerning the obligations of the 
United States under the GATT 1994, the Anti-Du mping 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; Article s 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 Panel at its meeting of 24 July 2001.  Chile, 
the EC and Japan reserved their third-rights.  On 16 October 2001,  India requested the 
Director-General to determine the compositi on of the Panel.  On 26 October 2001, the 
Director-General composed the Panel.  On  16 April 2002, 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 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: 
  (a) the United States statutory provisions gove rning the use of facts available, sections 
776(a) and 782(d) and (e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, are not inconsistent 
with Articles 6.8 and paragraphs 3, 5, an d 7 of Annex II of the AD Agreement.   
 (b) 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/23 
 Page 125 
 
 
  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 therefor e not ruled on India's claim in this regard.  
  With respect to India's claims not a ddressed above, the Panel concluded that:  
 
 (a) it would not rule on India's abandoned claim; and  (b) in light of considerations of judi cial economy, it was neither necessary nor 
appropriate to make findings with respect to the remainder of India's claims.  
 
The Panel therefore recommended that the DSB re quest the United States to bring its measure 
into conformity with its obli gations under the AD Agreement. 
 At its meeting on 29 July 2002, the DSB adopted the Panel report. 
 62. 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:  
(1) the price band system established by Law 18.525 (as subsequently amended by Law 
18.591 and Law 19.546), as well as implemen ting regulations and complementary 
and/or amending provisions; and  
(2) the provisional safeguard measures adopted on 19 November 1999 by Decree 
No. 339 of the Ministry of Economy and th e definitive safeguard measures imposed 
on 20 January 2000 by Decree No. 9 of the Ministry of Economy on the importation 
of various products, including wheat, wh eat flour and edible vegetal oils. 
 Argentina considered that these measures raised questions concerning the obligations of Chile 
under various agreements. According to Argen tina, the provisions with which the measures 
relating to the said price band system are inc onsistent, include, but are not limited to, the 
following: Article II of the GATT 1994, and Article 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
According to Argentina, the provisions with which the safeguard measures are inconsistent, 
include, but are not limited to, the following: Ar ticles 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 esta blishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 
1 February 2001, the DSB deferred the establishmen t of a panel.  Further to a second request 
to establish a panel by Argentina, the DSB est ablished a panel at its meeting of 12 March 
2001.  Australia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica , the EC, Ecuador, El Salvador, 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 requ ests of the parties.  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; WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 126  
 
  (b) as regards the Chilean safeguard measur es on wheat, wheat flour and edible vegetable 
oils: (i) Chile has acted inconsistently w ith 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; 
(ii) Chile has acted inconsistently with Article XIX:1(a) of GATT 1994 because 
the CDC failed to demonstrate the existence of unforeseen developments, 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; 
(iii) Chile has acted inconsistently w ith Article XIX:1(a) of GATT 1994 and 
Articles 2 and 4 of the Agreement on Safeguards because the CDC failed to demonstrate the likeness or direct competitiveness of the products produced by the domestic industry, and, consequently, failed to identify the domestic industry; 
(iv) Chile has acted inconsistently w ith Article XIX:1(a) of GATT 1994 and 
Articles 2.1 and 4.2(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards because the CDC failed to demonstrate the increase in im ports of the products subject to the 
safeguard measures required by those provisions; 
(v) 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 Safeguards because the 
CDC did not demonstrate the existence of a threat of serious injury; 
(vi) 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; 
(vii) Chile has acted inconsistently w ith Article XIX:1(a) of GATT 1994 and 
Article 5.1 of the Agreement on Safe guards because the CDC did not ensure 
that the measures were limited to the extent necessary to prevent or remedy 
injury and facilitate adjustment; 
(viii) Argentina failed to establish that Chile has acted inconsistently with the 
requirement of Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards to 
conduct an "appropriate investigation"  because Argentina allegedly did not 
have a full opportunity 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 appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of 
law covered in the Panel Report and certain le gal 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 Re port, that the duties 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 claim under 
Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agricultu re before examining Argentina's claim 
under Article II:1(b) of the GATT 1994; 
  (c) with respect to Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture:   WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 127 
 
 
   (i) upheld the Panel's finding, in paragr aphs 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; 
   (ii) reversed the Panel's finding, in pa ragraphs 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"; 
   (iii) upheld the Panel's finding, in pa ragraphs 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. 
 
 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 inconsistent with the 
Agreement on Agriculture, into conformity with  its obligations under that Agreement.  
  At its meeting on 23 October 2002, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and the 
Panel Report, as modified by the Appellate Body Report. 
 
63. 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 in vestigation was completed 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 dum ping in that investigation without a proper 
establishment of the facts and based on an evaluation 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 normal 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, and Annex II, Paragraphs 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7 and Annex I, Paragraph 7 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  
 
On 3 May 2001, Turkey requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 16 May 2001, the DSB deferred the establishment of a pa nel.  Further to a second request to establish 
a panel by Turkey, the DSB established a panel at  its meeting of 20 June 2001.  Chile, the EC, 
Japan and the US reserved their third party right s.  On 18 July 2001, the Panel was composed. 
 
 On 8 August 2002, the Panel Report was circulat ed 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 Tu rkey has not established that the Egyptian 
Investigating Authority was required to exam ine and evaluate the particular factors WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 128  
 
 identified by Turkey as "relevant factors a nd indices having a bearing on the state of 
the domestic industry"; 
 (b) Article 3.2 of the AD Agreement, as Turk ey has not established that there was a legal 
obligation on the Egyptian Investigating Au thority to perform the price undercutting 
analysis in the way asserted by Turkey; 
 (c) Article 3.1 of the AD Agreement, as Tu rkey has not established that the Egyptian 
Investigating Authority's price undercutting finding was not based on positive evidence; 
 (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 mate rial injury to present material injury and 
notice thereof to the Turkish exporters; 
 (e) Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the AD Agreemen t, as Turkey has not established that the 
Egyptian Investigating Authority violat ed the positive evidence requirement of 
Article 3.1 by virtue of the Investigati ng Authority not developing certain specific 
kinds of evidence, nor has Turkey establishe d that, as a consequence, Egypt violated 
the requirement of Article 3.5 to dem onstrate a causal relationship between the 
dumped imports and the injury to the domestic industry; 
 (f) Article 3.5 of the AD Agreement, as Tu rkey has not established that the Egyptian 
Investigating Authority's evaluation of th e 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 Agreemen t, 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 asser ted by Turkey in respect of whether the 
imports caused injury "through the effects of dumping"; 
 (h) Article 6.8 of the AD Agreement and paragr aph 5 of Annex II thereto, with regard to 
three of the Turkish exporters, as an unbi ased and objective investigating authority 
could have found that these three exporte rs failed to provide necessary information 
and that resort to facts available was ther efore justified in calculating the cost of 
production in respect of these three exporters; 
 (i) Article 6.1.1 of the AD Agreement, as th e request for information at issue was not a 
"questionnaire" in the sense of this provis ion, and the minimum time-period provided 
for in Article 6.1.1 was therefore not app licable to this request for information; 
 (j) Article 6.2 of the AD Agreement, or para graph 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 Inves tigating Authority for submission of the 
requested information was unreasonable or , as a consequence, that the Egyptian 
Investigating Authority failed to provide th e Turkish exporters with a full opportunity 
for the defence of their interests; 
 (k) Article 6.2 of the AD Agreement, or para graph 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 Investig ating Authority for the submission of the 
requested information was unreasonable or , as a consequence, that the Egyptian 
Investigating Authority failed to provide th e 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 A nnex II to the AD Agreement, as Turkey has not established that the 
Egyptian Investigating Authority failed to u se "special circumspection"  in estimating 
the prevailing inflation rate in Turkey, whic h was applied to the data reported by one 
respondent, at 5 per cent per month; 
 (n) Article 6.7 of the AD Agreement, paragr aph 7 of Annex I theret o, 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  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 129 
 
 
 mandatory for investigating authorities to  conduct "on-the-spot" verification of 
information submitted, that investigatin g authorities are precluded from requesting 
additional information during the course of th e investigation, that the rights of the 
Turkish exporters were seriously prejudiced, or that the actions of the Egyptian Investigating Authority impaired their "oppor tunity to provide further explanations"; 
 (o) Article 2.4 of the AD Agreement, as Tu rkey has not established that the burden of 
proof requirement of that provision is a pplicable 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 burden of proof on the Turkish respondents; 
 (p) Article 6.2 of the AD Agreement and para graph 6 of Annex II thereto, as Turkey has 
not established that the Egyptian Investigating Authority denied requests of Turkish exporters for meetings; 
 (q) Article 2.4 of the AD Agreement, 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 Agreement, as Turkey has not made a prima 
facie  case that the Egyptian Investigating Au thority violated these provisions in 
deciding not to make an interest income offset in calculating cost of production and constructed normal value; and 
 (s) Article X:3 of GATT 1994 as Turkey has not  established that Egypt administered 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 travel to Cairo for a meeting with the Investigating Authority.   
 The Panel concluded that Egypt acted in consistently 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 Investiga ting 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 para graph 6 of Annex II thereto, with regard to 
two of the Turkish exporters, as the Egyptian Investigating Authority, 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 reference (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 Ar ticle 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/23 
Page 130  
 
 64. WT/DS212 – United States – Countervailin g 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 con tinued application 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 required by Article 1.1(b) of the SCM Agre ement. The EC included in this request for 
consultations 12 US countervailing duty orders
1 where this " same person " methodology was 
applied.  All these cases involve alleged non-r ecurring subsidies granted to firms prior to a 
change of ownership; 
 
On 1 February 2001, the EC requested fu rther consultations with the US.  Failing 
consultations and further to the request of th e EC, the DSB established a panel at its meeting 
of 10 September 2001.  Brazil, India and Mexico reserved their third-party rights.  On 25 
October 2001, the EC requested the Director-G eneral 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 expect ed 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 market value, the benefit from a prior non-
recurring financial contribution bestowed upon th e state-owned producer no longer accrues to 
the privatized producer.  Therefore, the Pa nel 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 interpretations  developed by the Panel. The United States 
sought review by the Appellate Body of the conc lusions of the Panel set forth in paragraphs 
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 Articles 10, 14, 19.1, 19.4, 21.1, 21.2 and 21.3 of the  SCM Agreement, by imposi ng and maintaining countervailing duties 
without determining whether a "benefit" conti nues to exist in twelve countervailing duty 
determinations; 
 
                                                     
 
1 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 
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 Ge rmany (C-428-817); Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate 
from Spain (C-469-804). 
* Preliminary determination, plus final sunset results  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 131 
 
 
 • 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 mu st reach the conclusion that no "benefit" 
resulting from the prior financial contribution (or subsidization) continues to accrue to 
the privatized producer";  and 
 
• reversed the Panel's conclusion, in para graph 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 Pane l Report, these actions of the United States 
constitute  prima facie  nullification or impa irment of benefits accruing to the European 
Communities, pursuant to Article 3.8 of th e DSU; and, because the United States has 
failed to rebut this presumption, the United States has in fact nullified or impaired 
benefits accruing to the European Co mmunities under the  SCM Agreement. 
 
The Appellate Body recommended that the DSB request the United States to bring its 
measures and administrative practice (the "same person" methodology) into conformity with 
its obligations under that Agreement.  On 8 January 2003, the DSB adopted the Appellate 
Body Report and the Panel Report, as modi fied by the Appellate Body Report. 
 65. 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 count ervailing duties imposed by the US on imports of 
certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat produc ts ("corrosion resistant steel"), dealt with 
under US case number C-428-817.  This dispute relate d, 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 Regist er 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 count ervailable subsidy.  The EC considered that 
this finding is inconsistent with the obligati ons 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 consultations.  As the consultations failed, a 
panel was established by the DSB on 10 Septembe r 2001 further to the request of the EC.  
Japan and Norway reserved their third-party ri ghts.  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 Panel 
informed the DSB that the Panel would not be ab le 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 expected to comp lete its work by July 2002.   
 
 On 3 July 2002, the Panel circulated its repor t to Members.  The Panel concluded that:   
 
(a) US CVD law and the accompanying regulations  are consistent with Article 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;  WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 132  
 
 (b) US CVD law and the accompanying regulations are 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;  
(c) the United States, in applying a 0.5 per cen t de minimis standard to the instant sunset 
review, acted in violation
 of Article 21.3 of the SCM Agreement; 
 (d) 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 
 (e) the United States, in failing to determine properly 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 United States to bring its measures 
mentioned in paragraphs (b), (c) and (e) in to conformity with its obligations under the 
WTO Agreement. 
  One member of the Panel dissociated him self 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 share 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  minimis 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 appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law covered in the Panel report. The Report was circulated to Members on 28 November 2002.  The Appellate Body:  
• upheld Panel findings relating to the Panel's terms 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 States law with obligations relating 
to the determination to be made in a sunset review; 
• reversed the Panel's interpre tation of Article 21.3 of the   Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures  as regards  de minimis   subsidization in sunset reviews.  
Accordingly, the Appellate Body also reve rsed the related Panel findings that United 
States law, as such and as applied, we re inconsistent 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. 
  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 133 
 
 
 66. WT/DS217, WT/DS234 – United States – Cont inued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 
2000 
 Joint complaint by Australia, Brazil, Chile, Eu ropean 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 complainan ts requested 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 comp lainants the Act is inconsistent with the 
obligations of the United States under several provisions of the GATT, the AD Agreement, 
the SCM Agreement, and the WTO Agreement.  In particular, the Act is alleged to be 
inconsistent with the obligations of the Unite d 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 Agreemen t; 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 pane l by the complainants, the DSB established a 
panel at its meeting on 23 Augus t 2001.  Argentina; Canada; Costa Rica; Hong 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 DS B deferred the establishment of  a panel.  Further to a 
second request to establish a panel by Canada a nd Mexico, the DSB established a panel at its 
meeting on 10 September 2001.  The DSB also ag reed, in accordance with Article 9 of the 
DSU, that the panel established to examine th e complaint by Australia, Brazil, Chile, EC, 
India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea and Tha iland (WT/DS217) on 23 August 2001 would also 
examine the complaint 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 exp ected to complete its work by July 2002.   
 
 On 16 September 2002, the Panel Report was circulated to Members.  The Panel concluded 
that the CDSOA was inconsistent with Artic les 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 rejected the 
complaining parties' claims that the CDSOA w as inconsistent with Articles 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 confronted by sensitive issues regarding the 
use of subsidies as trade remedies.  If Members were of the view 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 WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 134  
 
 extent that the CDSOA was inconsistent with the provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, 
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 United States to bring the CDSOA into conformity with its obligations under the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the SCM Agreemen t, and the GATT of 1994 by repealing the 
CDSOA.  
 On 18 October 2002, the United States notified its  decision to appeal to the Appellate Body 
certain issues of law covered in the Panel Re port and certain legal in terpretations developed 
by the Panel.  On 13 December 2002, the Appe llate Body informed the DSB that it was not 
able to circulate the Report within 60 days fro m the appeal and that the Report was to be 
circulated no later than 16 January 2003.   On 16 January 2003, the Appellate Body circulated 
its Report.  The Appellate Body:  
 (a) upheld the finding of the Panel, in paragr aphs 7.51 and 8.1 of the Panel Report, that 
the CDSOA is a non-permissible specific  action against dumping or a subsidy, 
contrary to Article 18.1 of the  Anti-Dumping Agreement   and Article 32.1 of the 
SCM Agreement ;  
 (b) consequently upheld the Panel's finding,  in paragraphs 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 has 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 ; 
 (c) 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 CDSOA is inconsistent with provisions 
of the  Anti-Dumping Agreement   and the  SCM Agreement ,  the CDSOA nullifies or 
impairs benefits accruing to the Compla ining Parties under those Agreements;  
 (d) reversed the Panel's findings, in paragra phs 7.66 and 8.1 of the Panel Report, that the 
CDSOA is inconsistent w ith Article 5.4 of the  Anti-Dumping Agreement   and 
Article 11.4 of the  SCM Agreement ;  
 (e) rejected the Panel's conclusion, in para graph 7.63 of the Panel Report, that the United 
States may be regarded as not having act ed in good faith with respect to its 
obligations under Article 5.4 of the  Anti-Dumping Agreement   and Article 11.4 of the 
SCM Agreement ; and 
 (f) 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 request the Un ited 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 adopted the 
Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report, as modified by the Appellate Body, at its 
meeting on 27 January 2003. 
 
67. WT/DS219 – European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Malleable Cast Iron 
Tube or Pipe Fittings from Brazil 
Complaint by Brazil.  On 21 December 2000, Br azil requested consultations with the EC as 
regards definitive anti-dumping duties impo sed by Council Regulation (EC) No. 1784/2000 
concerning imports of malleable cast ir on tube or pipe fittings originating, inter alia , in 
Brazil.     WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 135 
 
 
 • Brazil considered that the EC's establishmen t of the facts was not proper and that its 
evaluation of these facts was not unbiased and objective, both at the provisional and definitive stage, particularly in relation to the initiation and conduct of the investigation 
(including the evaluation, findings and determ ination of dumping, 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 pa nel 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 th e Panel to suspend its work until 1 March 2002 
with a view to reaching a mutually agreed solu tion.  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 soluti on.  The Panel agreed to this request.  On 22 
April 2002, the Panel resumed its work, in accord ance with Brazil's request.  On 3 May 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 
work in December 2002.  On 7 March 2003, the Pa nel circulated its Report to the Members.  
The Panel concluded that the EC had acted inconsistently with its obligations under: 
 
 – Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  in "zeroing" negative dumping margins 
in its dumping determination; and 
  – Article 12.2 and 12.2.2 in that it is not directly discernible from the published 
Provisional or Definitive Determination th at the European Communities addressed or 
explained the lack of significance of certain injury factors listed in Article 3.4. 
 The Panel ruled against Brazil on all other cl aims.  On 23 April 2003, Brazil notified its 
decision to appeal certain issues of law as well as certain legal interpretations developed by 
the Panel. 
 
On 22 July 2003, the Appellate Body Report was ci rculated to Members.  Of the seven issues 
appealed by Brazil, the Appellate Body rejected Brazil's claims with respect to six issues.  
The Appellate Body upheld
 the Panel's findings that the European Communities 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 evidence 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 th e 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 certa in information related to the evaluation of 
the state of the domestic industry, which was contained in document Exhibit EC-12. 
 On 18 August 2003, the DSB adopted the Appella te Body report and the Panel report, as 
modified by the Appellate Body Report.  WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 136  
 
 68. 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 Ro und Agreements Act (the "URAA") and the 
Statement of Administrative Action accompan ying the URAA.  In Canada'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 Agreements, 
the US law prohibits the US from complying fully with the DSB ruling. Under US law, determinations whether to levy anti-dumping or countervailing duties are made after the 
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 determinations, even wh ere the determination whether to levy anti-
dumping or countervailing duties is made after th e 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 obliga tions under the AD or SCM Agreements.  
 
 Canada considered that these measures ar e inconsistent 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 not e 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 establis hed a panel at its meeting of 23 August 2001.  
Chile, EC, India and Japan reserved their third- party rights.  On 30 Oc tober 2001, the Panel 
was composed.  On 30 April 2002, the Chairman  of the Panel informed the DSB 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 had failed to establish that sec tion 129(c)(1) of the Uruguay Round Agreements 
Act was inconsistent with 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 Ag reement.  In the light of its conclusion, 
the Panel made no recommendations to the DSB. 
 
 On 30 August 2002, the DSB adopted the Panel report.   
69. WT/DS222 – Canada – Export Credits a nd Loan Guarantees for Regional Aircraft 
Complaint by Brazil.  On 22 January 2001, Brazil requested consultations with Canada 
concerning subsidies which are allegedly being gran ted to  Canada's regiona l aircraft 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 airc raft 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, Industr y Canada, and the Province 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, since they are financial contributions that 
confer a benefit.   WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 137 
 
 
 • According to Brazil, they are also conti ngent, in law or in fact, upon export, and 
constitute, therefore, a violation of Article 3 of the SCM Agreement.  
 Further to Brazil's request, the DSB establishe d a panel at its meeting of 12 March 2001. 
Australia, the EC, India and the US reserved thei r third party rights.  On 7 May 2001, Brazil 
requested the Director-General to determine th e 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 com position.  The panel informed that it expected 
to complete its work by October 2001.  On 28 Ja nuary 2002, the Panel circulated its report to 
the Members.  The Panel: 
 
• rejected Brazil's claims that the EDC Corporate Account, Canada Account, the IQ 
programmes "as such" constitute prohibited 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 ex port subsidies contrary to Article 3.1(a) 
of the SCM Agreement; 
• upheld Brazil's claim that the EDC Canada A ccount financing to Air Wisconsin, to Air 
Nostrum and to Comair constitutes a prohibited export subsidy contrary to Article 3.1(a) 
of the SCM Agreement; 
• rejected Brazil's claim that the EDC Corporate Account financing to ASA, ACA, Kendell 
Air Nostrum and Comair in December 1996, March 1997 and Ma rch 1998 constitutes a 
prohibited export subsidy contrary to Article 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 wit hdraw the subsidies identified within 90 days. 
 
 At its meeting on 19 February 2002, the DSB adopted the panel report.   
 
70. WT/DS231 – European Communities – Trade Description of Sardines 
Complaint by Peru.  On 20 March 2001, Peru re quested consultations with the EC concerning 
Regulation (EEC) 2136/89 which, according to Peru , prevents Peruvian exporters to continue 
to use the trade description "sar dines" 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, consid ered that the above 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, Pe ru argues that the Regulation 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 establishe d a Panel at its meeting on 24 July 2001.  
Canada, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela and the US reserved their third-party rights.  WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 138  
 
 On 31 August 2001, Peru requested the Director-G eneral to determine the composition of the 
Panel.  On 11 September 2001, the Panel was composed.  On 11 March 2002, the Panel 
informed the DSB that it would not be able to  issue its report within 6 months, due to the 
complexity of the matter and scheduling constraint s.  The Panel expects to complete its work 
by end of April 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 appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues 
of law covered in the in the Panel report and certain legal interpreta tions developed by the 
Panel. 
 
 On 26 September 2002 the report of the Appellate  Body was circulated.  The Appellate Body: 
  (a) found that the condition attached to th e withdrawal of the Notice of Appeal of 
25 June 2002 was permissibl e, and that the appeal of the EC, commenced by the 
Notice of Appeal of 28 June 2002, was admissible; 
 
 (b) found that the  amicus curiae   briefs submitted were admissible but their contents did 
not assist in deciding the appeal; 
  (c) upheld the Panel's finding, in paragr aph 7.35 of the Panel Report, that the 
EC Regulation is a "technical re gulation" under the TBT Agreement; 
 
 (d) 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 adopted 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 regulations, including 
the EC Regulation; 
 
 (e) upheld the Panel's finding, in paragraph 7. 70 of the Panel Report, that Codex Stan 94 
is a "relevant international standard" under Article 2.4 of the TBT Agreement; 
  (f) upheld the Panel's finding, in paragr aph 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; 
  (g) reversed the Panel's finding, in paragr aph 7.52 of the Panel Report, that, under the 
second part of Article 2.4 of the TBT Agre ement, the burden of proof rested with 
the EC to demonstrate that Codex Stan 94 is an "ineffective or inappropriate 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 demonstrate that Codex Stan 94 is an eff ective and appropriate means to fulfil those 
"legitimate objectives", and, upheld the Pane l's finding, in paragraph 7.138 of the 
Panel Report, that Peru has adduced su fficient evidence and legal arguments to 
demonstrate that Codex Stan 94 is not "ineffective or inappropriate" to fulfil the 
"legitimate objectives" of the EC Regulation; 
  (h) rejected the claim of the EC that th e Panel did not conduct "an objective assessment 
of the facts of the case", as required by Article 11 of the DSU;  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 139 
 
 
  
 (i) rejected the claim of the EC that the Pa nel made a determinati on, in paragraph 7.127 
of the Panel Report, that the EC Regulation is trade-restrictive, 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-restrictiv e character of the EC Regulation;  and 
 
 (j) found it unnecessary to complete the analysis under Article 2.2 of the  
TBT Agreement, Article 2.1 of the TB T Agreement, or Article III:4 of the 
GATT 1994. 
 
 Therefore, the Appellate Body upheld the Pa nel's finding, in paragraph 8.1 of the Panel 
Report, that the EC Regulation is inconsiste nt 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 modifi ed by its Report, to be inconsistent with 
Article 2.4 of the TBT Agreement, into c onformity with EC's obligations under that 
Agreement. 
  On 23 October 2002, the DSB adopted the Appella te Body Report and the Panel Report, as 
modified by the Appellate Body Report. 
 
71. WT/DS236 – United States – Preliminary Determinations with respect to Certain 
Softwood Lumber from Canada 
Complaint by Canada.  On 21 August 2001, Ca nada requested consultations with the US 
concerning the preliminary countervailing duty  determination and the preliminary critical 
circumstances determination made by the US  Department of Commerce on 9 August 2001, 
with respect to certain softwood lumber from Canada.  This request also concerned US 
measures on company-specific expedited reviews a nd administrative reviews.  In particular:  
 
• As far as the preliminary countervailing du ty determination is concerned, Canada 
considered this determination to be inconsis tent with US obligations under Articles 1, 2, 
10, 14, 17.1, 17.5, 19.4 and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement and Article VI(3) of GATT 
1994.   
• With respect to the preliminary critical circ umstances determination, Canada considered 
this determination to be inc onsistent 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 ar e 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 required 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 signifi cant trade impact, Canada requested urgent 
consultations pursuant to Article 4.8 of the DSU.  Although accepting Canada's request to 
enter into consultations, the US did not accept th is 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 for or deposit of preliminary duties which coul d be refunded in whole or in part. 
 WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 140  
 
 On 25 October 2001, Canada requested the estab lishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 
5 November 2001, the DSB deferred the establis hment of a panel.  At its meeting on 
5 December 2001, the DSB established a panel.  The EC and India reserved their third-party rights to participate in the pa nel proceedings.  On 17 December 2001, Japan requested to 
participate in the proceedings as a third party. 
 
On 22 January 2002, Canada requested the Dir ector-General to determine the composition of 
the panel.  On 1 February 2002, the Di rector-General com posed the panel. 
 
 On 27 September 2002, the Panel Report was circulated. The Panel found that the USDOC 
Preliminary Countervailing Duty Determination: 
  (a) was not inconsistent with Article 1. 1 (a) SCM Agreement when the USDOC found 
that the provision of stumpage constituted a fi nancial contribution, in the form of the 
provision of a good or service; 
 (b) failed to determine the existence and amount  of benefit to the producers of the subject 
merchandise on the basis of the prevailing market conditions in Canada as required 
by Article 1.1 (b) and Article 14 and 14 (d) SCM Agreement; and 
 (c) 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 USDOC's imposition of provisional measures based 
on the preliminary countervailing duty dete rmination was inconsistent 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 Agreement and Article 
VI:3 of GATT 1994.  
 
 The Panel further concluded that the retro active imposition of a provisional measure on the 
basis of the USDOC Preliminary Critical Circum stances Determination is inconsistent 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 estab lish the existence of critical circumstances 
under Article 20.6 SCM Agreement in its Prelimin ary Critical Circumstances Determination.  
  Finally, the Panel concluded that the US laws and regulations ch allenged 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 Agreemen t concerning expedited and administrative 
reviews.  As a result the Panel rejected Canada's  claims that the United States has failed to 
ensure that its laws and regulations are in c onformity with its WTO obligations as required by 
Article 32.5 of the SCM Agreement and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement. 
  The Panel recommended that the DSB request th e United 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/23 
 Page 141 
 
 
 72. WT/DS238 – Argentina – Definitive Safe guard Measure on Imports of Preserved 
Peaches 
Complaint by Chile.  On 14 September 2001, Chile  requested consultations with Argentina in 
respect of a definitive safeguard measure wh ich Argentina applies on imports of peaches 
preserved in water containing added sweeteni ng matter, including syru p, preserved in any 
other form or in water.  According to Chile  Argentina's definitive safeguard measure 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 estab lishment 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.  Imme diately after the establishment, Chile stated 
that it would not, for the moment, proceed with the appointment of panelists, as it was still hoping to reach a mutually satisfactory solution with Argentina.  The European 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 sche dule agreed with the parties and that the Panel 
expected to circulate its report at the end of  January 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 w ith certain provisions of the Agreement on 
Safeguards and GATT 1994.  In particular:  
• Argentina acted inconsistently with its ob ligations under Article XIX:1(a) of GATT 
1994 by failing to demonstrate the existence of unforeseen developments as required;  
 
• Argentina acted inconsistently with its ob ligations under Article XIX:1(a) of GATT 
1994 and Articles 2.1 and 4.2(a) of the Ag reement on Safeguards by failing to make a 
determination of an increase in imports, in absolute or relative terms, as required;  
 
• Argentina acted inconsistently with its ob ligations 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: 
 
(i) did not evaluate all of the relevant factors having a bearing on the situation of 
the domestic industry;  
(ii) did not provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the facts 
supported their determination; and 
(iii) did not find that serious injury was clearly imminent. 
 
The Panel did not find that Argentina acted  inconsistently with  its obligations under 
Articles 2.1 and 4.1(b) of the Agreement on Sa feguards by basing a finding of the existence 
of a threat of serious injury on an allegation,  conjecture or remote possibility.  The Panel 
exercised judicial economy with respect to all other claims.  At its meeting on 15 April 2003, the DSB adopted the Panel Report. 
 WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 142  
 
 73. WT/DS241 – Argentina – Definitive Anti-D umping Duties on Poultry from Brazil 
 Complaint by Brazil.  On 7 November 2001, Br azil requested consultations with Argentina in 
respect of the definitive anti-dumping duties imposed by Argentina on imports of poultry from Brazil, classified under Mercosur tari ff line 0207.11.00 and 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 Offici al Gazette on 24 July 2000.  Brazil considered 
that the definitive anti-dumping duties imposed , as well as the investigation conducted by the 
Argentinean Authorities might have been flawed and based on erroneous or deficient procedures, inconsistent with Argentina's obligati ons under Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 12 and 
Annex II of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, Artic le 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 establishment of a panel.  At the DSB meeting on 17 April 2002, the panel was 
established.  Argentina noted that notwithsta nding the establishment of the 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 Direct or-General to compose the panel.  On 
27 June 2002, the panel was composed. 
 On 18 December 2002, the Chair of the Panel in formed the DSB that it would not be possible 
to complete its work in six months due to th e schedule 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 Re port to the Members.  The Panel found that 
Argentina had acted inconsistently with its obliga tions 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 Anti-Dumping Agreement.  The Panel also concluded that Ar gentina had not acted inconsistently with a 
number of Articles from the same Agreement and d eclined to rule on a number of claims for 
judicial economy reasons. 
 
 At its meeting on 19 May 2003, the DSB adopted the Panel Report.  
74. WT/DS243 – United States – Rules of Origin for Textiles and Apparel Products 
 Complaint by India.  On 11 January 2002, I ndia requested consultations with the United 
States in respect of its rules of origin applicable to imports of  textiles and apparel products as 
set out in Section 334 of the Uruguay Round Agr eements Act, Section 405 of the Trade and 
Development Act of 2000 and the customs re gulations implementing these provisions.   
  India argued that, prior to the abovementioned S ection 334, the rule of origin applicable to 
textiles and apparel products was the "substantial transformation" rule.  India considered that 
Section 334 changed the system by identifyi ng specific processing operations which would 
confer origin to the various types of textiles and apparel 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 indicated that the changes introduced by Section 334 had 
already been challenged by the European Communities on the grounds that they were 
incompatible with the United States' obligati ons under the Agreement on Rules of Origin and 
other WTO Agreements (WT/DS151).  India explained that that dispute was settled through a  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 143 
 
 
 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 th e particular export interests of the European 
Communities.   
 
 India is of the view that the changes intr oduced by Sections 334 and 405 have resulted in 
extraordinary complex rules under which the criteri a that confer origin vary between similar 
products and processing operations.  India argued that the structure of the changes, the circumstances under which they were adopted  and their effect on the conditions of 
competition for textiles and apparel products sugg est 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 pa nel .  Further to a second request by India, 
the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 24 June 2002.  EC, Pakistan and the Philippines 
reserved their third party rights.  On 3 July 20 02, Bangladesh reserved its third party rights.  
On 4 July 2002, China reserved its third part y 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 
complexity 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: 
  (a) India failed to establish that section 33 4 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act is 
inconsistent with Articles 2(b) or 2(c) of the RO Agreement ; and  
 
 (b) India failed to establish that section 405 of the Trade and Development Act is 
inconsistent with Articles 2(b), 2(c) or 2(d) of the RO Agreement ; 
  (c) 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.  
75. 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, Jap an requested consultations with the United 
States in respect of the final determinations  of both the United States Department of 
Commerce (DOC) and the United States Interna tional Trade Commission in the full sunset 
review of the anti-dumping duties imposed on impor ts of corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat 
products from Japan.  These dete rminations 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 United States Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
("the Act") and related regulations.  
• Japan further claimed that the procedur es and provisions of the Act and related 
regulations as well as the above determ inations were inconsistent with, inter alia , Articles 
VI and X of GATT 1994; Articles 2, 3, 5, 6 (i ncluding Annex II), 11, 12, and 18.4 of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement; and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement. WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 144  
 
  
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 establis hment 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 mee ting on 22 May 2002.  Brazil, Canada, Chile, 
EC, India. Korea, Norway and Venezuela reser ved third-party rights to participate in the 
Panel proceedings.  
On 9 July 2002, Japan requested the Director-G eneral to compose the panel.  On 17 July 
2002, the panel was composed.  On 5 August 2002 Venezuela decided to wit hdraw as a third party from the panel 
proceedings.  
 
 On 9 January 2003, the Chair of the Panel informed the 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 prescr ibed 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 Members.  
The Panel rejected all of Japan's claims challenging various aspects of the US laws and 
regulations regarding the conduct of "sunset" re views 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 rejected 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 Depa rtment of Commerce ("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 cas e 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 Appellate Body informed the DSB that the 
Appellate Body would not be able to circul ate its Report within 60 days due to the time 
required for completion and translation of the Re port and that it estimated that the Appellate 
Body Report in this appeal would be circul ated to WTO Members no later than 15 December 
2003. 
 
 On 15 December 2003, the report of the Appella te Body was circulated to Members. The 
Appellate Body upheld
 three findings but reversed  four of the Panel's legal findings.  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 Ag reement or the  WTO Agreement. Although 
its analysis 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  Anti-Dumping Agreement or the WTO Agreement . 
  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 145 
 
 
  At its meeting on 9 January 2004, the DSB a dopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel 
report, as modified by the Appellate Body report. 
 
76. 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 main tenance 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 measur es the United States complained of were the 
prohibition of imported apples from orchards in  which any fire blight was detected, the 
requirement that export orchards be inspected th ree times yearly for the presence of fire blight 
and the disqualification of any orchard from expor ting 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 es tablishment 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 established a panel.  Australia, 
Brazil and the EC reserved their third-party righ ts.  On 10 June 2002, New Zealand reserved 
its third party rights.  On 12 June 2002, Ch inese Taipei reserved its third party rights.  
 
On 9 July 2002, the US requested the Directo r-General to compose the panel.  On 17 July 
2002, the panel was composed.  On 16 January 2003, the Chairman 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 a pples from the United States was contrary to 
Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement and was not  justified under Article 5.7 of the SPS 
Agreement and that Japan's 1999 Pest Risk A ssessment 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 and certain legal interpretations de veloped 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 circul ate its Report within 60 days due to the time 
required for completion and translation of the Re port and that it estimated that the Appellate 
Body Report in this appeal would be circulat ed to WTO Members no later than 26 November 
2003. 
  On 26 November 2003, the report of the Appella te Body was circulated. The Appellate Body 
rejected all four of Japan's claims on appeal.  The Appellate Body upheld
 the Panel's findings WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 146  
 
 that Japan's phytosanitary measu re at issue was inconsistent with Japan's obligations under 
Articles 2.2, 5.7, and 5.1 of the SPS Agreemen t. The Appellate Body also 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 Panel 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 
"authority" to make rulings covering all appl e fruit that could possibly be exported from the 
United States to Japan, including apples ot her than "mature, symptomless" apples. 
  At its meeting on 10 December 2003, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the 
Panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body report. 
 
77. WT/DS246 – European Communities – Conditions for the Granting of Tariff 
Preferences to Developing Countries 
 Complaint by India.  On 5 March 2002, India re quested 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 Artic le 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 preferen ces accorded by the EC under the special 
arrangements, (i) for combatting drug production a nd trafficking and (ii) 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 arrangeme nts of the EC's GSP scheme, and nullify or 
impair the benefits accruing to India 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 joined in the consultations.  On 21 March 
2002, Colombia requested to be joined in the consultations.  On 6 December 2002, India requested the establis hment of a panel.  At its meeting of 19 
December 2002, the DSB deferred the establishmen t of a panel.  At its meeting on 27 January 
2003, the DSB established a Panel.  During the m eeting, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, 
Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Paraguay, Peru, Sri Lanka, Venezuela and the 
US reserved their third-party rights.  On 28 Ja nuary 2003, Nicaragua reserved its third-party 
rights.  On 29 January 2003, Panama reserved its  third-party rights.  On 3 February, Mauritius 
and Pakistan reserved their third-party rights.  On 6 February, Bolivia reserved its third party 
rights.  On 24 February 2003, India requested th e Director-General to compose the Panel.  On 
6 March 2003, the Director-General composed the Panel. 
 On 22 September 2003, the Chairman of the Pa nel informed the DSB that it would not be 
possible to complete its work in six months due  to the complexity 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 circul ated to the Members. The Panel found that: 
(i) India has demonstrated that the tariff preferences under the Special Arrangements to 
Combat Drug Production and Trafficking (the "Drug Arrangements") provided in the EC's  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 147 
 
 
 GSP scheme are inconsistent with Article I: 1 of GATT 1994;  (ii) the EC has failed to 
demonstrate that the Drug Arrangements are ju stified 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 failed 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 conf ormity with the Chapeau of Article XX.  (One 
panelist presented a dissenting opinion that th e Enabling Clause is not an exception to 
Article I:1 and that India has not made a claim under the Enabling Clause.)   
On 8 January 2004, the European Communities notif ied its decision to appeal to the Appellate 
Body certain issues of law covered in the Pa nel Report. On 5 March 2004, the Chairman of 
the Appellate Body informed the DSB that it w ould not be possible for the Appellate Body to 
complete its work within the 60-day period due to the time required for completion and translation of its Report.  The Appellate Body estimated that the Report would be circulated 
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 199 4; 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 relationship between Article I:1 of 
the GATT 1994 and the Enabling Clause. The Appe llate Body found that the complaining 
party is obliged not only to claim inconsis tency with Article I:1 of the GATT 1994, but 
also to raise the relevant provisions of th e Enabling Clause that the complaining 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 need not rule
 on the Panel's conclusion as to the 
consistency of the challenged measure with Article I:1 of the GATT 1994. 
 
• The Appellate Body reversed  the Panel's legal interpretati on of paragraph 2(a) of the 
Enabling Clause and footnote 3 thereto, by conc luding that, in granting differential tariff 
treatment, preference-granting countries ar e required, by virtue of the term "non-
discriminatory", to ensure that identical treatme nt is available to all similarly-situated GSP 
beneficiaries, that is, to all GSP beneficiari es that have the same "development, financial 
and trade needs" to which the treatment in ques tion is intended to respond.  With respect to 
the consistency of the challenged measure w ith the Enabling Clause, the Appellate Body 
upheld , albeit for different reasons, the Panel' s conclusion that the European Communities 
failed to demonstrate that the challenged measu re was justified under pa ragraph 2(a) of the 
Enabling Clause. 
 
At its meeting on 20 April 2004, the DSB adopt ed the Appellate Body report and the Panel 
report, as modified by the Appellate Body report. 
 78. WT/DS248, WT/DS249, WT/DS251, WT/D S252, WT/DS253, WT/DS254, WT/DS258 
and WT/DS259 – United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain 
Steel Products 
Complaints by the European Communities (WT/DS248), Japan (WT/DS249), Korea 
(WT/DS251), China (WT/DS252), Switzerland (WT/DS253), Norway (WT/DS254), New Zealand (WT/DS258) and Brazil (WT/DS259).   
 WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 148  
 
  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-finished 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 fo rm of a tariff rate quota on imports of slabs 
effective as of 20 March  2002.  The Eu ropean Communities considered that the 
aforementioned 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 Safeguards 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 jo in the consultations.  On 20 March 2002, 
Venezuela also requested to jo in the consultations.  On 21 March 2002, Norway and China 
requested to join the consultations as well.  On  22 March 2002, Mexico also requested to join 
the consultations.  On 25 March 2002, New Zealand also requested to join the consultations.  
The US informed the DSB that it had accepted the requests of Canada, China, Japan, Korea, 
Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland a nd Venezuela to join the consultations. 
 
On 20 March 2002, Japan (WT/DS249) requested c onsultations with the United States also 
with regard to the definitive safeguard measur es 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 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 April, Mexico requested to join the consultations.  On 9 Ap ril 2002, New Zealand requested to join the 
consultations.  The US informed the DSB th at it had accepted the requests of Mexico, New 
Zealand and Norway to join the consultations. 
 
On 20 March 2002, Korea (WT/DS251) requested consultations with the United States also 
with regard to the definitive safeguard measur es imposed by the US on the imports of certain 
steel products and the related laws of the US , including Sections 201 and 202 of the Trade 
Act of 1974 and Section 311 of the NAFTA Implem entation Act.  Korea claimed violations 
of Articles 2.1, 2.2, 3, 4, 5, 7.1, 7.4, 8.1,  9.1 and 12 of the Agreem ent on Safeguards, 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 Zealand requested to join the consu ltations. The US informed the DSB that it had 
accepted the requests of Japan, Mexico, New Zeal and and Norway to join the consultations. 
 On 26 March 2002, China (WT/DS252) requested consultations with the United States also with regard to the definitive safeguard meas ures 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 consu ltations. 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 requested 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 Articl es I:1 and XIX:1 of GATT 1994.  On 11 April 
2002, New Zealand requested to join the consu ltations.  On 15 April 2002, Japan requested to  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 149 
 
 
 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 consultations 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 Agreement on 
Safeguards and Articles I:1, II, X:3 and XIX of GATT 1994.  On 11 April 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 and 
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 imposed 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 requ ested to join the consultations.  On 31 May 
2002, Norway, China and Mexico requested to jo in 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 consultations 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 Eur opean Communities requ ested 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, Me xico and Norway to join consultations. 
 Further to individual requests for the estab lishment 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 Agreemen t on Safeguards and Article XIX:1 of GATT 
1994; 
  – 14 June 2002 – Japan claimed that the US measures violated Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 of 
the Agreement on Safeguards and Articles 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 Safeguards and Articles I:1, II and 
XIX of GATT 1994.  Switzerland claimed that the US measures violated Articles 2.1, 
2.2, 3.1, 4, 5.1 and 8.1 of the Agreem ent on Safeguards and Article XIX: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 th e US measures violated Articles 2.1, 2.2, 
3.1, 4.2, 5.1, 7 and 8.1 of the Agreem ent on Safeguards and Articles X:3(a) and 
XIX:1 of GATT 1994; 
 WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 150  
 
 – 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 a nd Articles 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 rights 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, Tha iland, Turkey and Venezuela have reserved 
their rights to participate in the Panel proceedings as a third party. 
 On 15 July 2002, the DSB was notified of a procedural agreement between the United States and the European Communities, Japan, Ko rea, China, Switzerland, Norway and 
New Zealand.  On 18 July 2002, the DSB was no tified of a procedural agreement between the 
United States and Brazil. 
 On 15 July 2002, the European Communities, Japan, Korea, China, Switzerland, Norway and 
New Zealand requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the Panel.  On 
25 July 2002, the Panel was composed.    
On 23 October 2002, Malaysia decided to w ithdraw as a third party from the panel 
proceedings. 
  On 20 February 2003, the Chairman of the Panel informed 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 rai sed.  The Panel hoped to complete its work by 
the end of April 2003. 
  The Panel circulated its Reports
2 to Members on 11 July 2003.  The Panel concluded that all 
the United States' safeguard measures at issue were inconsistent 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 th e 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 appeal to the Appellate Body certain 
issues of law covered in the Panel Report and cer tain legal interpretations developed by the 
Panel.  
                                                     
 
2 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/23 
 Page 151 
 
 
  On 8 October 2003, the Chairman of the Appella te 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 WT O Members no later than 10 November 2003.  
 
 On 10 November 2003, the Appella te Body Report was circulated  to Members. The Appellate 
Body upheld  the Panel's ultimate conclusions that each of the ten safeguard measures at issue 
in this dispute was inconsistent with the Unite d 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 r easoned and adequate explanation on "increased 
imports" and on the existence of a "causal link" between increased imports and serious injury 
for two of the ten safeguard measures. Ultima tely, 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 adopted the Appellate Body report and the 
Panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body report.  
 
79. WT/DS257 – United States – Final Countervailing Duty Determination with respect to 
Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada 
Complaint by Canada.  On 3 May 2002, Canada  requested consultations with the US.  The 
request concerned the final affirmative c ountervailing duty determination by the US 
Department of Commerce (File No. C-122839) issued on 25 March 2002, with respect to 
certain softwood lumber from Canada.  The measures at issue include the initiation and 
conduct of the investigation, the final determin ation, provision of expedited reviews, and 
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 Agreement and Ar ticles VI:3 and X:3 of GATT 1994. 
  On 18 July 2002, Canada requested the establishm ent of a panel.  At its meeting on 29 July 
2002, the DSB deferred the establishment of a pane l.  On 19 August 2002, Canada requested 
the withdrawal of its previous request for th e establishment of a panel and submitted a new 
request .  In particular, Canada claimed that in initiating the Lumber IV investigation, the 
United States had violated Articles 10, 11.4 and 32 .1 of the SCM Agreement.  In all the other 
claims, the new request corresponded to the previo us one (18 July 2002).  At its meeting on 
30 August 2002, the DSB deferred the establishmen t of a panel.  At its meeting on 1 October 
2002, the 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 circulat ed to Members.  The Panel found that the 
USDOC Final Countervailing Duty Determinati on was inconsistent with Articles 10, 14, 
14(d) and 32.1 SCM Agreement and Article VI:3  of GATT 1994.  The Panel decided to apply 
judicial economy as regards Canada's claims under Article 19.4 SCM Agreement and Article 
VI:3 of GATT 1994 concerning the methodologies us ed to calculate the subsidy rate; and its 
claims of violation of the procedural rules of evidence set forth in Article 12 SCM 
Agreement.  Further to Canada's statement at the first substantive meeting of the Panel with 
the parties that it did not consider it appropria te to press its claims under Articles 10, 11.4 and 
32.1 of the SCM Agreement concerning the initia tion 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 St ates to bring its measure into conformity 
with its obligations under th e SCM Agreement and GATT 1994. 
 WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 152  
 
 On 2 October 2003, the United States notified its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body 
certain issues of law covered in the Panel Re port and certain legal in terpretations developed 
by the Panel.  However, on 3 October 2003, the United States withdrew 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  decision to re-file its appeal to the 
Appellate Body of certain issues of law c overed in the Panel Report and certain legal 
interpretations developed by the Panel.  
On 17 December 2003, the Chairman of the Ap pellate Body informed the DSB that the 
Appellate Body would not be able to circulat e its Report within 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:   
• 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 improperl y determined the existence and amount of 
the "benefit" resulting from the financial c ontribution provided. Then the Appellate 
Body found that it was unable to complete the legal analysis of whether the US had 
correctly determined benefit in this inves tigation, 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 unrelated lumber 
producers. On the other hand, the Appellate Body reversed  the Panel's findings that 
the US acted inconsistently with its WTO obligations by failing to consider whether 
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 DS B adopted the Appellate Body report and the 
Panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body report.  
 
80. 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 Department of 
Commerce (DOC) on 21 March 2002 pursuant to section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as 
amended on 22 May 2002 (Final Determination).  The measures at issue include the initiation 
of the investigation, the conduct of the i nvestigation and the Final Determination. 
  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 153 
 
 
  Canada considered these measures and, in  particular, the dete rminations made and 
methodologies adopted therein by the DOC under authority of the United States Tariff Act of 
1930 , to violate Articles 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 establis hment of a panel.  At its meeting of 19 
December 2002, the DSB deferred the establishmen t of a panel.  Further to a second request 
by Canada, a panel was established by the DS B at its meeting on 8 January 2003.  The EC 
and India reserved their third-party rights.  On  15 January 2003, Japan reserved its third-party 
rights.  On 25 February 2003, the Panel was composed. 
 
On 25 August 2003, the Chairman of the Panel in formed the DSB that du e 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 par ties in December 2003. On 2 December 2003, the 
Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that the Panel expected 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 Departme nt of Commerce (DOC) failed to comply with 
the requirements of Articles 2.4.2 of the AD Ag reement because the DOC did not take into 
account all export transactions by applying the "zeroing" methodology when calculating the 
margin of dumping. (One member of the Pa nel issued a dissenting opinion regarding the 
finding on "zeroing".) The Panel found that a ll other claims submitted 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 Re port and certain legal in terpretations developed 
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-day period due 
to the time required for completion and tran slation 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 w as 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 financial expense 
attributable to the production of softwood lumber for Abitibi, one of the Canadian companies under investigation.  Although th e Appellate Body reversed the Panel on 
this issue, it was not required itself to rule on whether the United States had acted 
inconsistently with its WTO oblig ations 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 disturb the Panel's finding that the United States had not acted in a biased, non-objective, or other than even-
handed manner.  
 WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 154  
 
 At its meeting on 31 August 2004, the DSB a dopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel 
report, as modified by the Appellate Body report. 
 
81. WT/DS267 – United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton 
Complaint by Brazil.  On 27 September 2002 Brazil requested consultations with the US 
regarding prohibited and actionable subsidi es provided to US producers, users and/or 
exporters of upland cotton, as well as legislation, regulations, statutory instruments 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 incons istent 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 Ag reement on Agriculture; and Article III:4 of GATT 
1994.  Brazil was of the view that the US statutes, regulations, and administrative procedures 
listed above were inconsiste nt with these provisions as such and as applied.  
   On 9 October and 11 October 2002, Zimbabwe a nd India, respectively, requested to join the 
consultations.  On 14 October 2002, Argen tina and Canada 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 requested the es tablishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 
19 February 2003, the DSB deferred the establishm ent 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 the DSB 
announced that he continued to consult with Brazil and the US on the issue of appointing a 
DSB representative to facilitate the informati on-gathering process, pursuant to the Annex V 
procedures under the SCM Agreement, which had b een invoked by Brazil in its panel request.  
On 24 March 2003, Benin reserve d its third-party rights.  On 25 March 2003, Australia 
reserved its third-party rights.  On 26 March 2003, Paraguay reserved its third-party rights.  
On 28 March 2003, New Zealand reserved its th ird-party rights.  On 4 April 2003, Chad 
reserved its third-party rights.  On 9 May 2003, Brazil requested the Director-General to 
compose the panel.  On 19 May 2003, th e 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 th e complexity 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 w as 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 programmes are prohibited export subsidies which have no Peace Clause prot ection and are in violation of those 
disciplines;  
 
• the United States also grants several other prohibited subsidies in respect of cotton ; 
  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 155 
 
 
 • United States' domestic support programmes in respect of cotton are not protected by 
the Peace Clause, and certain of these programmes result in serious prejudice to Brazil's interests in the form of price suppression in the world market. 
 
On 18 October 2004, United States notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the Panel. On 16 December 2004, the Chairman of the Appellate 
Body informed the DSB that due to the numerous and complex issues arising in this dispute, the Appellate Body would not be able to circ ulate its Report by Friday, 17 December 2004.  
The Chairman then stated in the letter that in  the light of the numerous 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 th e Appellate Body expected to be considering 
two or three other appeals in the coming week s, the Appellate Body estimateed that the 
Appellate Body Report in this appeal would be circulated to WTO Members no later than 
Thursday, 3 March 2005.  
 
On 3 March 2005, the Appellate Body Report w as 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 tw o 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 paragraph 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 gr anted 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 period and, therefore, that these measures are not exempt, by virtue of Article 13(b)(ii), from acti ons under Article XVI:1 of the 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 the challenged price-contingent 
subsidies (marketing loan program paymen ts, user marketing (Step 2) payments, 
market loss assistance payments, and count er-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) may be a 
"world market", a "world market" for upla nd 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 exists" 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 e ffect of the price-contingent subsidies for 
marketing years 1999 to 2002 is significant price suppression in the same period;   
 WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 156  
 
 • finds
 that the Panel set out the findings of fact, the applicability of relevant 
provisions, and the basic rationale behind th is 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 Secti on 1207(a) of the FSRI Act of 2002, are 
subsidies contingent on the use of domestic over imported goods that are inconsistent 
with Articles 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 meaning 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 prohibited export 
subsidies under Article 3.1(a) of the  SCM Agreement   and are consequently 
inconsistent with Article 3.2 of that Agreement; 
 
• 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 th e 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 Stat es' export credit guarantee programs are 
prohibited export subsidies, under Article 3.1(a) of the  SCM Agreement ,  because 
they confer a "benefit" within the meani ng of Article 1.1 of that Agreement;   
 
At its meeting on 21 March 2005, the DSB adopt ed the Appellate Body report and the Panel 
report, as modified by the Appellate Body report.  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 157 
 
 
  
82. 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 determinati ons 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 Novemb er 2000 (65 Federal Regi ster 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, i ssued on 25 July 2001 (66 Federal Register 
38630). 
 
 Argentina considered that general US laws, re gulations, policies and pro cedures related to the 
administration of sunset reviews and the application 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 that 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 the 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 establishmen t of the panel.  Further to a second request 
by Argentina, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 19 May 2003.  The EC, Japan, Korea, Mexico and Chinese Taipei reserved their third-party rights. 
 
 On 22 August 2003, Argentina requested the Dir ector-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 sch eduling 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 regarding waivers in sunset reviews and 
certain provisions of the Sunset Policy Bulletin (SPB) concerning the DOC's obligation to determine likelihood of conti nuation or recurrence of dumping in sunset 
reviews are inconsistent with the US oblig ations under certain provisions of the ADA. 
With respect to the DOC's likelihood determ inations 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 othe r 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 intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the Panel. On 28 October 2004, the Chairman of the Appellate Body informed the DSB that the Appellate Body  would not be able to circulate its Report WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 158  
 
 within 60-day period due to the time required for completion and translation of the Report, 
and that the Appellate Body expected to comp lete its work no later 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 cha llenges 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 Bulletin—were set out 
with sufficient clarity in Argentina's requ est for the establishment of a panel, as 
required by Article 6.2 of the DSU; 
 
 
– upheld  the Panel's finding that the Sunset Policy Bulletin is a "measure" subject to 
WTO dispute settlement proceedings; 
– found  that the Panel did not meet its obligation 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 not 
appear to conduct a qualitative analysis of the cases filed in eviden ce.  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 thei r rights to participation 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 conc lusions 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 circumstances—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 
opportunity to defend its interests as re quired 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 ob ligations under 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 in terpretation of the term "injury" in 
Article 11.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement , or in its analysis with respect to the  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 159 
 
 
 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 wh ether injury to the domestic industry 
would be likely to continue or recur after termination of anti-dumping duties.  The 
Appellate Body further upheld  the 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 interpre tation 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 continuati on or recurrence of injury to the domestic 
industry upon termination of anti-dumpi ng 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 likelihood of injury recurring "within 
a reasonably foreseeable time"—are not in consistent 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 adopted the Appellate Body report and the 
Panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body report. 
 
83. 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 c oncerning the export 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 the Government of Canada and the Canadian 
Wheat Board (entity enjoying exclusive rights to purchase and sell Western Canadian wheat 
for human consumption) related to export of wheat  appear to be inconsistent with paragraphs 
1(a) and 1(b) of Article XVII of GATT 1994. 
As regards the treatment of grain imported into  Canada, the United States maintains that the 
following Canadian measures are inconsiste nt with Article III of the GATT 1994 and 
Article 2 of TRIMs since they discriminate against imported grain: 
• Under the Canadian Grain Act and Canadi an regulations, imported wheat cannot be 
mixed with Canadian domestic grain being received into or discharged out of grain 
elevators, and  WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 160  
 
 • Canadian Law caps the maximum revenues that railroads may receive on the shipment of 
domestic grain but not revenues received on the shipment of imported grain; and Canada 
provides a preference for domestic grain over 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 requested to join the consultations.  On 
6 March 2003, the US requested the establishm ent of a panel.  At its meeting on 18 March 
2003, the DSB deferred the establishment of a pane l.  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 
Director-General to compose the panel.  On 12 May 2003, the Director-General composed the 
panel.  On 30 June 2003, the United States s ubmitted a new request for the establishment of a 
panel.  On 1 July 2003, the Chair of the Pane l informed the DSB that it had agreed to the 
United States' request to suspend the Panel fo r three weeks from 1-21 July 2003.  The DSB 
established a second panel at its meeting on 11 Ju ly 2003.  Australia, Chile, China, the EC, 
Japan and Chinese Taipei reserved their third-part y rights.  On 25 July 2003, Mexico reserved 
its third-party rights.  On 11 July 2003, the second Panel was composed.  Further to a request 
by the United States, acceded to by the Pane l, 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 following the 
issuance of a preliminary ruling by the Panel a nd the harmonization of th is Panel's timetable 
with that of the second Panel and that the Panel ex pected 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 claim 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 Section 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 Trans portation Act were inconsistent 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 GATT 1994 and Article 2 of the TRIMs 
Agreement. 
 
On 1 June 2004, the United States notified its deci sion to appeal to the Appellate Body certain 
issues of law covered in the Panel Report and cer tain legal interpretations developed by the 
Panel.  
On 30 August 2004, the Appellate Body Report w as 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 200 4, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body 
report and the Panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body report. 
  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 161 
 
 
 84. 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 Softwood Lumber from Canada 
(Invs. Nos. 701-TA-414 and 731-TA-928 (Final)) and the final definitive anti-dumping and 
countervailing duties applied as a result of th e USITC's final determination made on 2 May 
2002, notice of which was published in the Un ited 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 material injury by reason of imports of softwood lumber from Canada that the 
Department of Commerce has determined are subs idized and sold in th e United States at less 
than fair value. 
  Canada claimed that, through these measures, th e 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 establishm ent of a panel.  At its meeting on 15 April 
2003, the DSB deferred the establishment of th e panel.  Further to a second request by 
Canada, the DSB established a panel at its  meeting on 7 May 2003.  The EC and Japan 
reserved their third party rights.  On 16 May 2003,  Korea reserved its third party rights.  On 
12 June 2003, Canada requested the Director-G eneral to compose the panel.  On 19 June 
2003, the Director-General com posed the panel. On 19 December 2003, the Chairman of the 
Panel informed the DSB that it would not be possi ble for the Panel to complete its work in six 
months in light of scheduling comflicts.  The Pane l expected to complete its work in February 
2004. 
 
 On 22 March 2004, the Panel report was circulat ed to Members. The Panel found that, in its 
final threat of injury determination, the US International 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 im minent substantial increase in imports and a 
casual link between imports and threat of injury to the domestic industry in the US producing 
softwood lumber.  The Panel found that the US ITC's finding of likelihood of substantially 
increased imports was not consistent with the requirements of the Agreements, and that the causation conclusion rested on this inconsistent finding.  The Panel therefore found that the 
anti-dumping 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.  B. APPELLATE
 BODY  AND  PANEL  COMPLIANCE  REPORTS  (ARTICLE  21.5)  ADOPTED 
1. WT/DS18/RW – Australia – Measures Affecting the Importation of Salmon 
 (See WT/DS18 for precedents)  Canada made a request, pursuant to DSU Article 21.5, for 
determination by the original panel of whether the measures taken by Australia in implementing the recommendations of the DSB were WTO-consis tent..  At its meeting of 28 July 1999, the 
DSB agreed to Canada's request and referred the matter for determination of the WTO-
consistency of the implementing m easures to the original panel.  The EC, Norway and the US 
reserved their third-party rights.  The DSB also referred the Canadian request for suspension of WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 162  
 
 concessions to arbitration in view  of Australia's challenge of th e level of nullification suffered 
by Canada.  On 7 September 1999, the Complian ce Panel and Arbitrat or were composed.  
  On 18 February 2000, the report of the DSU Articl e 21.5 panel was circulated to Members.  The 
panel found that:  
 
• due to delays in the entry into force of several implementing meas ures which extended 
beyond the reasonable period of time within  which Australia had to implement the DSB 
recommendations, no measures to comply existed in the sense of Article 21.5 of the DSU in 
respect of a number of covered products and durin g specific periods of time.  As a result, 
during those periods, Australia failed to bri ng its measure into conformity with the SPS 
Agreement in the sense referred to in Article 22.6 of the DSU.   
• Australia, by requiring that only salmon produc t that is "consumer-rea dy" as specifically 
defined can be imported into Australia and released from quarantine, was maintaining 
sanitary measures that were not "based on"  a risk assessment, which was contrary to 
Articles 5.1 and 2.2 of the SPS Agreement.   The panel also considered the same 
requirement to be in violation of Ar ticle 5.6 of the SPS Agreement.   
• Finally, the panel found that Australia violated  Articles 5.1 and 2.2 of the SPS Agreement 
as a result of a measure enacted by the Government of Tasmania that effectively prohibits the importation of certain Cana dian salmon product into most parts of Tasmania without 
being based on a risk assessment and wit hout sufficient scient ific evidence.   
 At its meeting on 20 March 2000, the DSB adopte d the report of the compliance panel. 
 
2. WT/DS27/RW – European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and 
Distribution of Bananas 
 (See WT/DS27 for precedents)  On 15 Decemb er 1998, the EC requested  the establishment of 
a panel under Article 21.5 to determine that th e implementing measures of the EC must be 
presumed to conform to WTO rules unless challe nged in accordance with DSU procedures.  
On 18 December 1998, Ecuador requested the re-establishment of the original panel to 
examine whether the EC measures to implement the recommendations of the DSB are WTO-consistent.  At its meeting on 12 January 1999,  the DSB agreed to reconvene the original 
panel, pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU, to examine both Ecuador's and the EC's requests.  
Jamaica, Nicaragua, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Dominican Republic, Dominica, 
St. Lucia, Mauritius, St. Vincent, indicated th eir interest to join as third parties in both 
requests, while Ecuador and India indicated their third-party interest only in the EC request.  On 18 January 1999, the Compliance Panels were composed.  The two Compliance Panel Reports were circulated on 12 April 1999.. 
  In the panel requested by the EC, pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU, the panel found that, 
because a challenge had actually been made by Ecuador regarding th e WTO-consistency of 
the EC measures taken in implementation of  the DSB recommendations, it was unable to 
agree with the EC that the EC must be presumed to be in compliance with the 
recommendations of the DSB. The report of th e compliance panel requested by the EC, under 
Article 21.5 of the DSU, was never adopted by the DSB. 
 In the panel requested by Ecuador, pursuant to  Article 21.5 of the DSU, the panel found that 
the implementation measures taken by the EC in  compliance with the recommendations of the 
DSB were not fully compatible with the EC's  WTO obligations. The report of the compliance 
panel requested by Ecuador, under Article 21.5 of the DSU, was adopted by the DSB on 6 May 1999. 
  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 163 
 
 
 3. WT/DS46/RW and WT/DS46/RW/2 – Brazil – Export Financing Programme for 
Aircraft 
(See WT/DS46 for precedents)  On 23 November 1999, Canada re quested the establishment of 
a panel under Article 21.5 of the DSU, requesting that the panel find that Brazil had not taken 
measures to comply fully with the rulings a nd recommendations of the DSB.  Canada and 
Brazil reached an agreement concerning the procedures to be applicable pursuant to Articles 21 
and 22 of the DSU and Article 4 of the Subsidie s Agreement.  At its meeting on 9 December 
1999, the DSB agreed to reconvene the original panel pursuant to Arti cle 21.5 of the DSU.  
Australia, the EC and the US reserved their third-party rights.  On 17 December 1999, the 
compliance panel was composed.   
 
The report of the compliance panel was circulat ed to Members on 9 May 2000.  The panel 
found that Brazil's measures to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB either 
did not exist or were not  consistent with the Subsidies Agreem ent.  In reaching this conclusion, 
the panel notably rejected Brazil's defence that  PROEX payments were permitted under item (k) 
of Annex I of the Subsidies Agreement, adding that, if a WTO Member encountered an export 
credit that had been provided on terms that it could not meet consistent with the SCM 
Agreement, the proper response wa s to challenge that export credit in WTO dispute settlement.   
  On 22 May 2000, Brazil notified its intention to appeal certain issu es of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the review panel.  The report of the Appellat e Body was circulated 
to Members on 21 July 2000.  Th e Appellate Body upheld the re view panel's conclusion that 
Brazil has failed to implement the recommenda tion of the DSB because of the continued 
issuance by Brazil of NTN-I bonds, after 18 Nove mber 1999, pursuant to letters of commitment 
issued before 18 November 1999.  The Appellate Body also upheld  the review panel's findings 
that payments made under the revised PROEX are prohibited by  Article 3 of the Subsidies 
Agreement and are not justified under item (k) of the Illustrative List of the same Agreement.  
The Appellate Body therefore uphe ld the review panel's conclusi on that Brazil has failed to 
implement the recommendations of the DSB.  The DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body report, at its meeting on 4 August 2000.   
  On 22 January 2001, Canada requested the DSB to refer the matter again to the original panel, 
pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. At its me eting of 16 February 2001, the DSB referred the 
matter to the original panel. Australia, the EC and Korea reserved their third-party rights.  The 
Panel circulated its report on 26 July  2001.  The Panel concluded as follows: 
 
• It has not been established that PROEX III as such was inconsistent with Article 3.1(a) of 
the SCM Agreement; 
• PROEX III as such is justified under the second paragraph of item (k) of the Illustrative List 
of Export Subsidies of Annex I of the SCM Agreement; 
• PROEX III cannot be justified under para graph 1 of the above-mentioned item. 
 
 At its meeting on 23 August 2001, the DSB adopted the Panel Report on this second recourse to 
Article 21.5 of the DSU. 
 4. 
WT/DS58/RW – United States – Import Pr ohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp 
Products 
(See WT/DS58 for precedents) On the grounds that the US had not implemented 
appropriately the recommendations of the DSB, on 12 October 2000, Malaysia requested that 
the matter be referred to the original panel pursuan t to Article 21.5 of the DSU.  In particular, WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 164  
 
 Malaysia considered that by not lifting th e import prohibition and not taking the necessary 
measures to allow the importation of certain sh rimp and shrimp products in an unrestrictive 
manner, the United States had failed to comply  with the recommendations and rulings of the 
DSB.  At its meeting of 23 October 2000, th e DSB referred the matter to the original panel 
pursuant to Article 21.5 DSU. Australia, Cana da, the EC, Ecuador, India, Japan, Mexico, 
Pakistan, Thailand and Hong Kong, China reserved  their third-party rights.  On 8 November 
2000, the Panel was composed. 
  The Panel circulated its report on 15  June 2001. The Panel concluded that:  
 
• the measure adopted by the US in order to comply with the recommendations and rulings 
of the DSB violated Article XI.1 of the GATT 1994;  
• in light of the recommendations and rulings of the DSB, Section 609 of Public Law 101-
162, as implemented by the Revised Guidelines of 8 July 1999 and as applied so far by the US authorities, was justified under Article XX of the GATT 1994 as long as the conditions stated in the findings of this Repor t, in particular the ongoing serious good 
faith efforts to reach a multilatera l agreement, remain satisfied.   
• should any one of the conditions referred a bove cease to be met in the future, the 
recommendations of the DSB may no longer be complied with. In such a case, any complaining party in the original case may be entitled to have further recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU. 
 On 23 July 2001, Malaysia notified the DSB its intention to appeal the above report.  In 
particular, Malaysia sought review by the Appe llate Body of the Panel's finding that the US 
measure at issue does not constitute unjustifiable or arbitrary discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail and th at it is therefore within the scope of the 
measures permitted under Article XX of the GATT 1994 as long as the conditions stated in 
the findings of the Panel Report, in particular the ongoing serious good faith efforts to reach a 
multilateral agreement, remain satisfied.   
 
 On 19 September, the Appellate Body informed the DSB of a delay in the circulation of its 
Report in this appeal.  The Report was circulated to the Members on 22 October 2001.  The Appellate Body upheld the contested findings of  the Panel:  Since it had upheld the Panel's 
findings that the US measure was now applied in a manner that met the requirements of 
Article XX of the GATT 1994, the Appella te Body refrained from making any 
recommendations.  On 21 November 2001, the DS B adopted the Appellate Body Report and 
the Panel Report, as upheld by the Appellate Body Report. 
 
5. WT/DS70/RW – Canada – Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft 
 (See WT/DS70 for precedents)  On 23 November  1999, Brazil requested the establishment of a 
panel under Article 21.5 because it believed that Canada had not taken measures to comply fully 
with the rulings and recommendations of the DS B.  Brazil and Canada reached an agreement 
concerning the procedures to be applicable pur suant to Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU and 
Article 4 of the Subsidies Agreement.  At it s meeting on 9 December 1999,  the DSB ag reed to 
reconvene the original panel pursuant to Article 21. 5 of the DSU.  Australia, the EC and the US 
reserved their third-party rights.  On 17 De cember 1999, the Compliance Panel was composed. 
  The report of the compliance panel was circul ated to Members on 9 May 2000.  The panel 
found: 
  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 165 
 
 
  (i) that Canada had implemented the recomm endation of the DSB that Canada withdraw 
Technology Partnership Canada (TPC) assistan ce to the Canadian regional aircraft 
industry within 90 days, 
 (ii) but that Canada had failed to impl ement the recommendation that it withdraw the 
Canada Account assistance to the Canadian regi onal aircraft industry within 90 days.   
 
 With regard to the latter finding, the panel cons idered that the measures taken by Canada were 
not sufficient to ensure that future Canada Account transactions in  the Canadian regional 
aircraft sector would be in conformity with  the interest rate provisions of the OECD 
Arrangement and would thereby qua lify for the safe haven in item (k) of Annex I of the 
Subsidies Agreement.  The panel therefore conc luded that Canada's measures did not ensure 
that such Canada Account transactions woul d not be prohibited export subsidies.   
  On 22 May 2000, Brazil notified its intention to appeal certain issu es of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the compliance pa nel.  The report of the Appellate Body was 
circulated to Memb ers on 21 July 2000.  The Appellate Body  found that the review panel erred 
in declining to examine one of Brazil's argument s to the effect that the revised TPC programme 
is inconsistent with Article 3.1(a) of the Subs idies Agreement.  The A ppellate Body also found, 
however, that Brazil had failed to establish that the revised TPC programme is inconsistent with 
Article 3.1(a) of the Subsidies Agreement and, ac cordingly, that Brazil had failed to establish 
that Canada has not implemented the recommen dations of the DSB.  The DSB adopted the 
Appellate Body report and the panel report, as modified by the Appell ate Body report, at its 
meeting on 4 August 2000.  Canada stated its intention to implement the recommendations of 
the DSB in respect of the Ca nada Account Programme.   
 
6. WT/DS99/RW – United States – Anti-Dumping Duty on Dynamic Random Access 
Memory Semiconductors (DRAMS) of One Megabit or Above from Korea 
 (See WT/DS99 for precedents)  On 9 March 2000, Korea informed the DSB that it believed that 
the measures taken by the United States to comp ly with the rulings and recommendations of the 
DSB were not consistent with  the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article X:1 of GATT 1994.  
Korea therefore requested that this matter be re ferred to the original panel pursuant to Article 
21.5 of the DSU.  On 6 April 2000, Korea submitte d a new request to the effect that the matter 
be referred to the original pane l pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU.  At its meeting on 25 April 
2000, the DSB agreed to reconvene the original pa nel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU.  The 
EC reserved its reserved its third-party right s.  On 11 May 2000, the Compliance Panel was 
composed. 
 
 On 19 September 2000, Korea requested the Panel to suspend its work, including the issuance 
of the interim report, "until further notification" pursuant to Article 12.12 of the DSU.  The Panel, in a letter sent to the parties on 21 Se ptember 2000, agreed to this request. On 20 
October 2000, the parties notified the DSB of a mutually satisfactory solution to the matter, 
involving the revocation of the antidumping order at issue as the result of a five-year "sunset" review by the US Department of Commerce. 
 
7. WT/DS103/RW and WT/DS113/RW – Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of 
Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products 
(See WT/DS103 for precedents and WT/DS103/RW/2  for follow-up).  On 16 February 2001, 
the US and New Zealand requested the DSB to refer the problems with the implementation of 
the original report to the original panel pursuant to Article 21.5 DSU. At its meeting of 1 
March 2001, the DSB referred the matter to the or iginal panel.  Australia, the EC and Mexico 
reserved their third party rights.  On 12 Ap ril 2001, the compliance Panel was composed. WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 166  
 
  
The compliance Panel circulated its report on 11 July 2001.  It concluded that Canada, 
through the CEM scheme and the continued oper ation of Special Milk Class 5(d), has acted 
inconsistently with its obligations under Artic les 3.3 and 8 of the Agreement on Agriculture, 
by providing export subsidies within the mean ing of Article 9.1(c) of the Agreement on 
Agriculture in excess of its quantity commitment levels specified in its Schedule for exports 
of cheese, for the marketing year 2000/2001.   
  On 4 September 2001, Canada appealed the compliance Panel report before the Appellate 
Body.  In particular, Canada appealed the Panel's finding that the Canadian measures in 
question constitute an export subsidy within th e meaning of Article 9.1(c)of the Agreement 
on Agriculture.  Canada considered that th e Panel's finding that commercial export sales 
constitute payments that are financed by virtue  of governmental action is based on erroneous 
findings on issues of law and on re lated legal interpretations with  respect to the interpretation 
and application of the said Article 9.1(c). 
 
The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members on 3 December 2001.  The Appellate Body reversed the compliance Panel's findings to the effect that the supply of CEM by domestic milk producers to domestic dairy processors involves "payments" on the export of milk "that are financed by virtue of go vernmental action" under Article 9.1(c) of the 
 Agreement on Agriculture.  The Appellate Body concluded that, in the light of the factual 
findings made by the Panel and the uncontested facts in the Panel record, it was unable to 
complete the analysis of the claims made  by New Zealand and the United States under 
Articles 9.1(c) or 10.1 of the  Agreemen t on Agriculture, or the claim made by the 
United States under Article 3.1 of the  SCM Agreement.  At its meeting on 18 December 
2001, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body Repor t and the Panel Report, as reversed by the 
Appellate Body Report. 
 
8. WT/DS103/RW/2 and WT/DS113/RW/2 – Canada – Measures Affecting the 
Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products 
(See WT/DS103, WT/DS103/RW for precedents).  On 6 December 2001, the US submitted to 
the DSB a second recourse for the establishment of a panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the 
DSU.  The US submits that, since the Appellate Body's 21.5 Report did not make any 
findings on the consistency of Canada's new m easures, the US continues to believe that 
Canada had failed to comply with the original  recommendations and rulings of the DSB.  On 
the same date, New Zealand made a similar request.  
At its meeting on 18 December 2001, the DSB agre ed, pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU, to 
refer to the original Panel, for the second time,  the matter raised by New Zealand and the US. 
At the meeting, the EC and Australia reserved th ird-party rights to participate in the Panel's 
proceedings.  On 28 December 2001, Argentina also reserved its third-party rights to 
participate in the Panel's proceedings.  
On 18 December 2001, Canada concluded with  New Zealand and the US respectively, 
additional understandings regarding proce dures under Article 21 and 22 of the DSU.  
Pursuant to both understandings, Canada and th e respective party agree to request that the 
arbitration requested by Canada under Article 22.6 of the DSU remain suspended pending the 
work of the compliance Panel.  
 
On 17 January 2002, the Panel was composed.  On 26 July 2002, the Report was circulated to the Members.  The Panel concluded that Ca nada, through the CEM scheme and the continued 
operation of Special Milk Class 5(d), had acted inconsistently with its obligations under  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 167 
 
 
 Articles 3.3 and 8 of the Agreement on Agricultu re, by providing export subsidies within the 
meaning of Article 9.1(c) of the Agreem ent on Agriculture in excess of its quantity 
commitment levels specified in its Schedule for exports of cheese and "other dairy products".  
It also concluded that Canada had acted incons istently with its obliga tions under Article 10.1 
of the Agreement on Agriculture and that theref ore Canada had acted in consistently with its 
obligations under Article 8 of the Agreemen t on Agriculture.  Accordingly, the Panel 
recommended that the DSB request Canada to bri ng its dairy products marketing regime into 
conformity with its obligations in respect  of export subsidies under the Agreement on 
Agriculture. 
 
On 23 September 2002, Canada notified its intenti on to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the compliance panel.  On 20 December 2002, the Appellate 
Body circulated its report.  The Appellate Body  upheld the Panel's finding that the measure at 
issue—the supply of "commercial export milk" ("CEM") by Canadian milk producers to Canadian dairy processors—involves export subs idies in the form of "payments" on the 
export of milk that are "financed by virtue of  governmental action" within the meaning of 
Article 9.1(c) of the  Agreement on Agriculture .  It reversed the Panel's interpretation of the 
rules on burden of proof in Article 10.3 of the  Agreement on Agriculture .  However, the 
Appellate Body held that this error did not a ffect any of the Panel's other findings under the 
 Agreement on Agriculture .  In view of its conclusion under Article 9.1(c) of the  Agreement 
on Agriculture ,  the Appellate Body declined to ru le on the Panel's alternative finding under 
Article 10.1 of that Agreement.   
 On 17 January 2003, the DSB adopted the Appe llate Body Report and the Panel Report, as 
modified by the Appellate Body Report.  
9. WT/DS108/RW – United States – Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations" 
 (See WT/DS108 for precedents)  On 7 December 2000, the EC notified the DSB that 
consultations had failed to settle the dispute a nd that it was requesting the establishment of a 
panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU.  At its meeting of 20 December 2000, the DSB agreed to refer the matter to the original pane l.  Australia, Canada, India, Jamaica and Japan 
reserved their third party rights.  On 5 January 2001, the Panel was composed.  On 
21 December 2000, pursuant to an agreement betw een the parties, the US and the EC jointly 
requested the Article 22.6 DSU arbitrator to suspend the arbitration proceeding until adoption 
of the panel report or, if there is an appeal , adoption of the Appellate Body report.  The 
arbitration was accordingly suspended. 
 
 On 20 August 2001, the compliance panel report was circulated to the Members.  The Panel 
concluded that the FSC Repeal and Extraterr itorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000 (the 
amended FSC legislation) was still inconsistent with Articles 3.1(a) and 3.2 of the SCM 
Agreement, with 10.1 and 8 of the Agreement on Agriculture and with Article III:4 of the 
GATT 1994. 
 
On 15 October 2001, the US notified its decision to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the panel report.  On 14 January 2002, the Appellate Body 
circulated its Report to the Members.  The Appellate Body:  
• upheld the Panel's findings that the US acted inconsistently with its obligations under the 
SCM Agreement, the Agreement on Agricu lture, and the GATT 1994 through the FSC 
amended legislation, a measure taken by the United States to implement the 
recommendations and rulings made by the DS B in the original proceedings in the  United 
States – FSC  dispute;  WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 168  
 
 • with respect to third party rights, found that th e Panel erred in its in terpretation of Article 
10.3 of the DSU in declining to rule that  all  written submissions of the parties filed prior 
to the first meeting of the Panel must be provided to the third parties. 
 
At its meeting on 29 January 2002, the DSB a dopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel 
Report, as upheld by the Appellate Body Report. 
 
10. WT/DS126/RW – Australia – Subsidies Provided to Producers and Exporters of 
Automotive Leather 
 (See WT/DS126 for precedents)  On 4 October 1999 , the United States info rmed the DSB that it 
believed that the measures taken by Australia to comply with the rulings and recommendations 
of the DSB were not consistent with the Su bsidies Agreement and the DSU, and therefore 
requested that the original panel be reconvened pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU.  At its 
meeting on 14 October 1999, the DSB agreed to  reconvene the original panel pursuant to 
Article 21.5 of the DSU.  The EC and Mexico rese rved their third-party rights.  On 1 November 
1999, the Compliance Panel was composed. 
 
 The report of the panel was circulated to Members on 21 January 2000.  The panel determined 
that Australia had failed to comply with the DSB's recommendations within 90 days.  The DSB adopted the review panel's report on 11 February  2000.  On 24 July 2000, the parties notified 
the DSB that they had reached a mutually satisfa ctory solution in regard to implementation of 
the findings of the review panel. 
 
11. WT/DS132/RW – Mexico – Anti-Dumping Investigation of High-Fructose Corn Syrup 
(HFCS) from the United States 
 On 12 October 2000, the US requested that the DSB refer the matter to  the original panel, 
pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU, in orde r to establish whether Mexico had correctly 
implemented the DSB's recommendations.  At its meeting of 23 October 2000, the DSB 
referred the matter to the original panel pursu ant to Article 21.5 of the DSU.  The EC, 
Jamaica and Mauritius reserved their third-part y rights. The US and Mexico informed the 
DSB that they were discussing mutually agreeable procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU in relation to this matter.  On 13 November 2000, the Panel was composed. 
 
 The Article 21.5 Panel circulated its repor t on 22 June 2001.  The Panel concluded that 
Mexico's imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of HFCS from the US on the basis of the SECOFI redetermination was inconsistent with the requirements of the 
AD Agreement in that Mexico's inadequate cons ideration of the impact of dumped imports on 
the domestic industry, and its inadequate consider ation of the potential effect of the alleged 
restraint agreement in its determination of lik elihood of substantially increased importation, 
are not consistent with the provisions of Articles 3.1, 3.4, 3.7 and 3.7(i) of the AD Agreement.  
The Panel therefore considered that Mexico has failed to implement the recommendation of 
the original Panel and the DSU to bring its measu re into conformity with its obligations under 
the AD Agreement. 
 
 On 24 July 2001, Mexico appealed the above Pa nel report.  In particular, Mexico requested 
the Appellate Body to examine and reverse th e Panel's conclusions that Mexico's imposition 
of definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of HFCS from the United States, on the basis of SECOFI's redetermination, was inconsistent with the requirements of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement, in that  
  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 169 
 
 
 • Mexico's inadequate consideration of th e impact of dumped imports on the domestic 
industry, and its inadequate consideration of the potential effect of the alleged restraint 
agreement in its determination of likelihood of substantially increased importation, are 
not consistent with the provisions of Article 3.1, 3.4, 3.7 and 3.7(i) of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement, and  
• Mexico therefore failed to implement the reco mmendation of the original Panel and of the 
DSB to bring its measure into conformity with its obligations under the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement;   
• and that it has nullified or impaired benef its accruing to the United States under that 
Agreement.   
 According to Mexico, these conclusions are based on erroneous matters of law and legal 
interpretations of various provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the DSU. 
 
 On 20 September 2001, the Appellate Body informed that the issuance of the report would be 
delayed.  The Report was circulated to th e Members on 22 October 2001.  The Appellate 
Body upheld the contested findings of the Panel and therefore recommended the DSB to request Mexico to bring its anti-dumping measure  into conformity with its obligations under 
that Agreement.  On 21 November 2001, the DS B adopted the Appellate  Body Report and the 
Panel Report, as upheld by the Appellate Body Report. 
 
12. WT/DS141/RW – European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Cotton-
Type Bed Linen from India 
 (See WT/DS141 for precedents)  On 8 March 2002,  India sought recourse to Article 21.5 of 
the DSU (request for consultations), stating that  there was disagreement as to the existence or 
consistency with a covered agreement of  measures taken to comply with the 
recommendations and rulings.  On 4 April 20 02, India requested the establishment of a 
compliance panel.  In particular, India claimed that the EC had violated Articles 2, 3, 5.7, 6, 9, 12 and 15 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. 
 
 Accordingly, India requested the Panel to conclude that:   (a) The re-determination, as amended, and th e subsequent actions as identified above, are 
inconsistent with the above provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and GATT 
1994; and 
  (b) By failing to withdraw the measures fou nd to be inconsistent with the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement and to bring its measures into c onformity with its obligations under the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement and GATT 1994, the EC has failed to comply with the DSB recommendations and rulings in this dispute. 
 
 At the DSB meeting on 17 April 2002, Indi a informed the DSB that pursuant to an 
understanding reached between the EC and India, it was requesting the withdrawal of the item 
from the agenda in accordance with Rule 6 of the Rules of Procedure for WTO meetings.  
The DSB agreed to India's request. 
 
 On 7 May 2002, India again requested the estab lishment of a compliance panel.  At the DSB 
meeting on 22 May 2002, it was agreed that, if po ssible, the matter would be referred to the 
original panel.  Japan and the United States rese rved their third party rights to participate in 
the proceedings.  On 27 May 2002, Korea reserved its third party rights.  On 25 June 2002, the compliance panel was composed.  On 19 August 2002, the Chairman of the Panel WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 170  
 
 informed the DSB that it expected to complete  its work in November 2002.  On 29 November 
2002, the report was circulated to Members.  Th e Panel concluded that the EC's definitive 
anti-dumping measure on imports of bed linen fro m India, EC Regulation 1644/2001, is not 
inconsistent with the AD Agreement or the DSU and that, therefore, the EC had implemented 
the recommendation of the original Panel, th e Appellate Body, and the DSB to bring its 
measure into conformity with its obligations under the AD Agreement. 
  On 8 January 2003, India informed the DSB that it intended to apeal certain issues of law and 
legal interpretations developed by the Panel in its Report.  On 6 March 2003, the Appellate 
Body informed the DSB that it was not able to circulate its report within the 60-day deadline 
and that it intended to do so no later than 8 Ap ril 2003.  On 8 April 2003, the Appellate Body 
circulated its Report.  The Appellate Body: 
 
(a) upheld   the Panel's finding that India's cl aim under Article 3.5 was not properly 
before the Panel and, consequent ly, declined  to rule on it, 
(b) reversed  the Panel's finding that the EC did not act inconsistent ly with paragraphs 1 
and 2 of Article 3 of the  Anti-Dumping Agreement , 
 
(c) declined  to rule on the Panel's finding that the EC applied the second alternative in 
the second sentence of Article 6.10 for limiting its examination in this investigation;  and 
 
(d) found  that the Panel properly discharged its duties under Article 17.6 of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement  and Article 11 of the DSU and, therefore, upheld the Panel's finding that the EC had information before it on the relevant economic factors 
listed in Article 3.4 of the  Anti-Dumping Agreement  when making its injury 
determination. 
  The Appellate Body recommended that the DSB request the EC to bring its measure  into 
conformity with the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  At its meeting on 24 April 2003, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and the Pane l Report, as modified by the Appellate Body 
Report. 
 
VI. IMPLEMENTATION STATUS OF ADOPTED REPORTS (in ascending order, by 
DS number) 
 For descriptions of the reports see Section V:   Completed Panel and Appellate Body Review. 
 1. WT/DS2 and WT/DS4 – United States – Sta ndards for Reformulated and Conventional 
Gasoline 
 Complaints by Venezuela and Brazil.  The US announced implementation of the 
recommendations of the DSB as of 19 August 1997, at the end of the 15 month reasonable 
period of time. 
 2. WT/DS8, WT/DS10 and WT/DS11 – Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages 
 Complaints by the European Communities, Canada and the United States.  On 24 December 
1996, the US, pursuant to Articl e 21(3)(c) of the DSU applie d for binding arbitration to 
determine the reasonable period of time for implementation by Japan of the recommendations 
of the Appellate Body.   
  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 171 
 
 
  The Arbitrator's report was ci rculated to members on 14 Febr uary 1997. The Arbitrator found 
the reasonable period for implementation of th e recommendations to be 15 months from the 
date of adoption of the reports i.e. it expire d on 1 February 1998.  Japan presented modalities 
for implementation whic h were accepted by the complainants. 
 3. WT/DS18 – Australia – Measures Affecting the Importation of Salmon 
 Complaint by Canada.  At the DSB meeting on 25 November 1998, Australia informed the 
DSB that it was committed to implementing the recommendations  of the DSB and was looking 
forward to discussing with the complainan ts the question of implementation.   
 
 On 24 December 1998, Canada  requested arbitration, pursuant to  Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, to 
determine the reasonable period of time for implementation of the re commendations of the 
DSB.  The Arbitrator decided that the reas onable period of time for implementation was 
8 months i.e. it expired on 6 July 1999.  The repor t of the Arbitrator was circulated to Members 
on 23 February 1999.  On 28 July 1999, Canada made a request to the DSB, pursuant to 
Article 22.2 of the DSU, for authorization to  suspend concessions to Australia for its non-
compliance with the recommendations of the DSB in  this matter.  Canada simultaneously made 
a request, pursuant to DSU Article 21.5, for dete rmination by the original panel of whether the 
measures taken by Australia in implementi ng the recommendations of the DSB were WTO-
consistent. Australia informed the DSB that in the event that the DSB approved Canada's 
request under 22.2, it wished to request, pursuant to DSU 22.6, for arbitration on the level of 
nullification suffered by Canada.  The DSB agreed to Canada's request and referred the matter 
for determination of the WTO-consistency of the implementing measures to the original panel.  
The EC, Norway and the US reserved their third-party rights.  The DSB also referred the Canadian request for suspension of concessions to arbitration in view of Australia's challenge of the level of nullification suffered by Canada.  On 7 September 1999, the Compliance Panel and 
Arbitrator were composed.  On 18 February 2000,  the report of the DSU Article 21.5 panel was 
circulated to Members.  At its meeting on 20 March 2000, the DSB adopted the report of the 
compliance panel. 
 
4. WT/DS24 – United States – Restrictions on Imports of Cotton and Man-Made Fibre 
Underwear 
 Complaint by Costa Rica.  At the meeting of  the DSB on 10 April 1997, the US informed the 
meeting that the measure which had been the s ubject of this dispute had expired on 27 March 
1997 and had not been renewed, effectively me aning that the US had immediately complied 
with the recommendations of the DSB. 
 5. WT/DS26 and WT/DS48 – European Communities – Measures Affecting Meat and 
Meat Products (Hormones) 
 Complaints by the United States and Canada. On 8 April 1998, the respondent requested that 
the "reasonable period of time" for implementati on of the recommendations and rulings of the 
DSB be determined by binding arbitration, pur suant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU.  The 
Arbitrator found the reasonable period of time  for implementation to be 15 months from the 
date of adoption (i.e. 15 mont hs from 13 February 1998).  The report of the Arbitrator was 
circulated to Members on 29 May 1998. 
  The period for implementation was set by arbitra tion at 15 months from the date of the adoption 
of the reports i.e. it expired on 13 May 1999.  The EC undertook to comply with the 
recommendations of the DSB within the impl ementation period.  At the DSB meeting on 
28 April 1999, the EC informed the DSB that it would consider offering compensation in view WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 172  
 
 of the likelihood that it may not be able to co mply with the recommendations and rulings of the 
DSB by the deadline of 13 May 1999.   
  On 3 June 1999, the United States and Canada , pursuant to Article 22.2 of the DSU, requested 
authorization from the DSB for the suspension of concessions to the EC in the amount of 
US$202 million and Can.$75 million, respectively.  The EC, pursuant to Article 22.6 of the 
DSU, requested arbitration on the level of suspension of conces sions requested by the United 
States and Canada.  The DSB referred the issue of  the level of suspension to the original panel 
for arbitration.   
 
 The arbitrators determined the level of nullificati on suffered by the United States to be equal to 
US$116.8 million, and the level of nullificatio n suffered by Canada to be equal to 
CDN$11.3 million.  The report of the arbitrator s was circulated to Me mbers on 12 July 1999.  
At its meeting on 26 July 1999, the DSB authorized  the suspension of concessions to the EC by 
the United States and Canada in the respective amounts determined by the arbitrators as being 
equivalent to the level of nullification suffered by them.  
 
At the DSB meeting on 7 November 2003, the EC stated that following the entering into force 
of its new Directive (2003/74/EC) regarding the prohibition on the use in stockfarming of certain hormones, there was no legal basis for the continued imposition of retaliatory 
measures by Canada and the US; one of the reas ons cited by the Appellate Body in its ruling 
against the EC was its failure to carry out a ri sk assessment within the meaning of Articles 5.1 
and 5.2 of the SPS Agreement; and, having  commissioned such an assessment to be 
undertaken on its behalf by an independent sci entific committee whose findings indicated that 
the hormones in question posed a risk for consumers, the EC had fulfilled its WTO obligations and was entitled to demand the imme diate lifting of the sanctions imposed by 
Canada and the US in accordance with the pr ovisions of Article 22.8 of the DSU. The US 
stated that they had carefully reviewed the new EC Directive and did not share the view that it 
implemented the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.  The new measure lacked any 
scientific basis and as such could not be justif ied under the SPS Agreement.  Contrary to the 
EC's claim, a number of studies had found that there was no increased health risk from the consumption of meat from animals treated with growth-promoting hormones.  In the 
circumstances, the US was not in a position to accede to the request by the EC. Canada said 
that while his country was prepared to discu ss this matter further with the EC, it doubted 
whether the new studies presented any new scientific basis for the ban of hormone-treated beef, and was also not in a position to accede to the request of the EC.  The EC responded that 
on the basis of the negative position expressed by  the US and Canada, it would reflect on the 
appropriate actions that would be necessary in  order to preserve its rights under the WTO 
agreements. 
 At the DSB meeting on 1 December 2003, the EC stated that: in light of the disagreement 
between the parties to the dispute with rega rd to the EC's compliance with the DSB's 
recommendations, the matter should be referred to the WTO for a multilateral decision; this 
situation was similar to other cases, which had been  resolved in the past through recourse to 
Article 21.5 of the DSU; Canada and the US  should initiate multilateral procedures to 
determine whether or not the EC was in complian ce; the EC stood ready to discuss this matter 
with Canada and the United States. Canada st ated that, although at the 7 November DSB 
meeting, Canada had put forward a sugges tion for bilateral discussions concerning the 
justification for the EC's position regarding it s compliance with the WTO ruling, the EC had 
not responded to this suggestion; it was up to th e EC to establish that it had complied with the 
WTO ruling; Canada continued to be open to discussions with the EC regarding its 
justification for its position; at this stage, Canada did not see any basis for removal of its 
retaliatory measures nor wished to take any other action.  The US stated that: the US failed to  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 173 
 
 
 see how the revised EC measure could be considered to implement the DSB's 
recommendations; with regard to the EC's suggestion that multilateral proceedings be 
established to determine whether or not the EC  was in compliance with the WTO rulings, the 
US was ready to discuss this matter along with other outstanding issues in relation to the EC's 
ban on US beef. 
 
6. WT/DS27 – European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and 
Distribution of Bananas 
 Complaints by Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and the United States.  
 
 On 17 November 1997, the complainants request ed that the "reasonable period of time" for 
implementation of the recommendations and rulin gs of the DSB be determined by binding 
arbitration, pursuant to Articl e 21.3(c) of the DSU.  The Arbi trator found the reasonable period 
of time for implementation to be 15 months and 1 week from the date of the adoption of the reports i.e. it expired on 1 January 1999.  The report of the Arbitrator was circulated to 
Members on 7 January 1998. 
  On 18 August 1998, further the EC's revision of their legislation, the complainants requested 
consultations with the EC (without prejudice to their rights under Article 21.5), for the resolution of the disagreement between them  over the WTO-consistency of measures 
introduced by the EC in purported compliance with the recommendations and rulings of the 
Panel and Appellate Body.  At the DSB me eting on 25 November 1998, the EC announced 
that it had adopted the second Regulation to im plement the recommendations of the DSB, and 
that the new system will be fully operationa l from 1 January 1999.  On 15 December 1998, 
the EC requested the establishment of a pane l under Article 21.5 to determine that the 
implementing measures of the EC must be presumed to conform to WTO rules unless 
challenged in accordance with DSU procedures.   On 18 December 1998, Ecuador requested 
the re-establishment of the original panel, under Article 21.5, to examine whether the EC 
measures to implement the recommendations of th e DSB are WTO-consistent.  At its meeting 
on 12 January 1999, the DSB agreed to reconvene the original panel, pursuant to Article 21.5 
of the DSU, to examine both Ecuador's and the EC's requests.  
 
 On 14 January 1999, the United States, pursuant to Article 22.2 of the DSU, requested 
authorization from the DSB for suspension of  concessions to the EC in an amount of 
US$520 million.  At the DSB meeting on 29 January  1999, the EC, pursuant to Article 22.6 of 
the DSU, requested arbitration on the level of suspension of concessions requested by the 
United States.  The DSB referred the issue of the level of suspension to the original panel for 
arbitration.  Pursuant to Article 22.6 of the DSU, the request for the suspension of 
concessions by the United States was deferred by  the DSB until the determination, through 
the arbitration, of the appropriate leve l for the suspension of concessions.   
  In the arbitration under Article 22.6 of the DSU, necessitated by the EC's challenge to the 
level of suspension sought by the United Stat es (US$520 million), the arbitrators found that 
the level of suspension sought by the United States was not equivalent to the level of 
nullification and impairment suffered as a result of the EC's new banana regime not being 
fully compatible with the WTO.  The arbitr ators accordingly determined the level of 
nullification suffered by the United States to be equal to US$191.4 million.  The arbitrator's report and the reports of the panels were issued  to the parties on 6 April 1999, and circulated 
to Members on 9 and 12 April 1999 respectivel y.  On 9 April 1999, the United States, 
pursuant to Article 22.7 of the DSU, request ed that the DSB authorize suspension of 
concessions to the EC equivalent to the leve l of nullification and impairment, i.e. US$191.4 WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 174  
 
 million.  On 19 April 1999, the DSB authorized the United States to suspend concessions to 
the EC as requested.  
  The report of the compliance panel requested by Ecuador, under Article 21.5 of the DSU, was 
adopted by the DSB on 6 May 1999.  On 8 N ovember 1999, Ecuador requested authorization 
from the DSB to suspend the application to the EC  of concessions or other related obligations 
under the TRIPS Agreement, GATS and GATT 1994, pursuant to Article 22.2 of the DSU, in an amount of US$450 million.  At the DSB meeting on 19 November 1999, the EC, pursuant to Article 22.6 of the DSU, requested arbitra tion on the level of suspension of concessions 
requested by Ecuador.  The DSB referred the issu e of the level of suspension to the original 
panel for arbitration.  Pursuant to Article 22. 6 of the DSU, the request for the suspension of 
concessions by Ecuador was deferred by th e DSB until the determination, through the 
arbitration, of the appropriate leve l for the suspension of concessions.   
  Also at the DSB meeting on 19 November 1999, the EC informed the DSB of its proposal for 
reform of the banana regime, which envisages a two-stage process, comprising a tariff rate 
quota system for several years.  This system should then be replaced by a tariff only system no later than 1 January 2006.  The proposal includes a decision to continue discussions with interested parties on the possible systems for distribution of licences for the tariff rate quota 
regime.  If no feasible system can be found, the proposal for a transitional tariff rate quota regime would not be maintained and negotia tions under Article XXVIII of GATT 1994 would 
be envisaged to replace the current system with  a tariff only regime.  At the DSB meeting on 
24 February 2000, the EC explained that there continued to be divergent views expressed by 
the main parties concerned and that, as a result,  no agreed conclusions could be reached.   
  The arbitrator's report (on the Ecuadorian  request for suspension of concessions) was 
circulated to Members on 24 March 2000.  The arbitrators found that the level of nullification 
and impairment suffered by Ecuador amounted to  US$201.6 million per year.  The arbitrators 
found that Ecuador may request authorization by the DSB to suspend concessions or other obligations under GATT 1994 (not including i nvestment goods or primary goods used as 
inputs in manufacturing and processing industries); under GATS with respect to "wholesale trade services" (CPC 622) in the principal di stribution services; and, to the extent that 
suspension requested under GATT 1994 and GATS wa s insufficient to reach the level of 
nullification and impairment determined by th e arbitrators, under TRIPS in the following 
sectors of that Agreement:  Section 1 (copyrig ht and related rights); Article 14 on protection 
of performers, producers of phonograms and broadcasting organisations), Section 3 
(geographical indications), Section 4 (industrial designs).  The arbitrators also noted that, 
pursuant to Article 22.3 of the DSU, Ecuador should first seek to suspend concessions or 
other obligations with respect to the same sect ors as those in which the panel reconvened at 
the request of Ecuador pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU had found violations, i.e. GATT 
1994 and the sector of distribution servi ces under GATS.  On 8 May 2000, Ecuador 
requested, pursuant to Article 22.7 of the DS U, that the DSB authorize the suspension of 
concessions to the EC equivalent to the leve l of nullification and impairment, i.e. US$201.6 
million.  On 18 May 2000, the DSB authori zed Ecuador to suspend concessions to the 
European Communities as requested.   
  At the DSB meeting of 27 July 2000, the European Communities stat ed with respect to 
implementation of the recommendations of the DSB that it had begun examining the 
possibility of managing the proposed tariff rate quotas on a first come, first served basis 
because negotiations with interested parties on tariff rate quota allocation on the basis of 
traditional trade flows had reached an impasse.  The European Communities also said that its 
examination would include a tariff only system and its implications. At the DSB meeting of 
23 October 2000, the EC stated that it was fina lizing its internal decision-making process with  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 175 
 
 
 a view to implementing the new banana regime. To  this effect, the EC considered that, during 
a transitional period of time, its new banana re gime should be regulated by the establishment 
of tariff-rate quotas and managed on the basis of a "first-come, first-served" (FCFS) system. 
Before the end of transitional period of time, the EC would initiate Article XXVIII 
negotiations with a view to establishing a ta riff-only system. On 1 March 2001, the EC 
reported to the DSB that on 29 January 2001, the Council of the European Union adopted 
Regulation (EC) No 216/2001 amending Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 on the common organisation of the market in bananas. Th e modifications made in Council Regulation 
216/2001 provide for three tariff quotas open to all imports irrespective of their origin: (1) a 
first tariff quota of 2.200.000 tonnes at a rate of 75€/tonnes, bound under the WTO; (2) a 
second autonomous quota of 353.000 tonnes at a rate of 75€/tonnes; (3) a third autonomous 
quota of 850.000 tonnes at a rate of 300€/tonnes. Imports from ACP countries will enter duty-free. In view of contractual obligations to wards these countries and the need to guarantee 
proper conditions of competition, they will bene fit from a tariff preference limited to a 
maximum of 300€/tonnes. The tariff quotas are a tr ansitional measure leading ultimately to a 
tariff-only regime. According to the EC, substa ntial progress has been achieved with respect 
to the implementing measures necessary to mana ge the three tariff rate quotas on the basis of 
the First-come, First-served method.   
  On 3 May 2001, the EC reported to the DSB that intensive discussions with the US and 
Ecuador, as well as the other banana supplying countries, including the other co-
complainants, have led to the common identifica tion of the means by which the long-standing 
dispute over the EC's bananas import regime  will be resolved.  In accordance with 
Article 16(1) of Regulation No (EC) 404/93  (as amended by Council Regulation No (EC) 
216/2001), the EC will introduce a Tariff Only re gime for imports of bananas no later than 
1 January 2006. GATT Article XX VIII negotiations will be initia ted in good time to that 
effect.  In the interim period, starting on 1 Ju ly 2001, the EC will implement an import regime 
based on three tariff rate quotas, to be allocat ed on the basis of historical licensing.   
  On 22 June 2001, the EC notified an "Unders tanding on Bananas between the EC and the US" 
of 11 April 2001, and an "Understanding on Bananas between the EC and Ecuador" of 
30 April 2001.  Pursuant to these Understandi ngs with the US and Ecuador, the EC will 
implement an import regime on the basis of historical licensing as follows:  
  (1) effective 1 July 2001, the EC will implement an import regime on the basis of 
historical licensing as set out in annex to each of the Understandings;  
 (2) effective as soon as possible thereafter, subject to Council and European Parliament 
approval and to adoption of an Article XIII waiver, the EC will implement an import 
regime on the basis of historical licensing as set out in annex to each of the Understandings.   
 The Commission will seek to obtain the implementa tion of such an import regime as soon as 
possible.  Pursuant to its Understanding with the EC, the US,  
 
 (i) upon implementation of the new import  regime described under (1) above, would 
provisionally suspend its imposition of the increased duties;  
 (ii) upon implementation of the new import  regime described under (2) above, would 
terminate its imposition of the increased duties;  
 (iii) may reimpose the increased duties if the import regime desc ribed under (2) does not 
enter into force by 1 January 2002; and  
 (iv) would lift its reserve concerning the wa iver of Article I of the GATT 1994 that the 
EC has requested for preferen tial access to the EC of goods originating in ACP states 
signatory to the Cotonou Agreement; and will actively work towards promoting the WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 176  
 
 acceptance of an EC request for a waiver  of Article XIII of the GATT 1994 needed 
for the management of quota C under the import regime described under (2) above until 31 December 2005.   
 Pursuant to its Understandi ng with the EC, Ecuador  
 
 (i) took note that the European Commission will examine the trade in organic bananas 
and report accordingly by 31 December 2004;  
 (ii) upon implementation of the new impor t regime, Ecuador's right to suspend 
concessions or other obligations of a level not exceeding US$201.6 million per year 
vis-à-vis the EC would be terminated;  
 (iii) Ecuador would lift its reserve concerni ng the waiver of Article I of the GATT 1994 
that the EC has requested for preferential access to the EC of goods originating in 
ACP states signatory to the Cotonou Agre ement; and would actively work towards 
promoting the acceptance of an EC request for a waiver of Article XIII of the GATT 
1994 needed for the management of quot a C under the import regime described in 
paragraph C(2) until 31 December 2005.   
 The EC notified the Understandings as mutually satisfactory solutions within the meaning of 
Article 3.6 DSU.  Both Ecuador and the US communicated that the Understandings did not 
constitute mutually satisfactory solutions within  the meaning of Article 3.6 DSU and that it 
would be premature to take the item off the DSB agenda.  At the DSB meeting on 
25 September 2001, Ecuador made an oral statement whereby it criticised the Commission proposal aimed at reforming the EC common organisation for bananas in order to honour the above Understandings.    
On 4 October 2001, the EC circulated a status  report on the implementation where it indicated 
that it was continuing to work actively on the legal instruments required for the management 
of the three tariff quotas after 1 January 2002.  In  addition, the EC's report indicated that no 
progress had been made since the previous DSB meeting regarding the waiver request 
submitted by the EC and the ACP States.  The EC further indicated that in the event that no progress was made at the meeting of the Council of Trade in Goods scheduled for 5 October 
2001, the EC and the ACP States would be forced to  reassess the situation in all respects.  At 
the DSB meeting on 15 October 2001, the EC recalled that the procedure for the examination of the waiver request had been unblocked at the meeting of the Council for Trade in Goods on 5 October 2001, and expressed its readiness to work  and discuss with all interested parties in 
the course of this examination.  Ecuador said that if the waiver was limited to what was 
required during the transitional import regime th en it could be granted quickly.  Guatemala 
said that it would carefully follow the outcome of EC's actions and requested that the item 
should remain on the DSB agenda.  Honduras noted that the EC had an obligation to describe 
the measures to be put in place after 2005.  It also reiterated its concerns that the rights of developing countries were not being respected.  Panama supported the statement by Honduras 
and urged the EC to take into account the concer ns of Latin American banana exporters.  The 
US expressed satisfaction that the examination procedure of the waiver request had started 
and hoped that the process woul d be expeditious.  Saint Lucia said that the statement by 
Honduras that the EC disregarded the rights of some developing countries was inaccurate.  It welcomed the start of the examination proce dure and hoped that any current differences 
would soon be resolved.  At the DSB meeting on 5 November 2001, the EC informed that the 
Working Party to examine the wa iver requests submitted by the EC and ACP had made some 
progress.  Ecuador said that tariff preferences to be applied by the EC would reproduce the 
same inconsistencies in the banana import re gime.  Honduras indicated that it was necessary 
to ensure that the scope of the waiver did not go beyond what was required for the  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 177 
 
 
 implementation of the new regime.  Panama said that even if the waiver was granted, the 
dispute would not be settled.  At the DSB meeting on 18 December 2001, the EC welcomed the granting of the two waivers by the Ministerial Conference, which were the prerequisite for the implementation of phase II 
of the Understandings reached with the United States and Ecuador.  The EC noted that the 
Regulation implementing phase II would be a dopted on 19 December 2001, with effect on 
1 January 2002.  Ecuador, Honduras, Panama and Colombia noted the progress made and 
sought information from the EC concerning th e granting of import licences by one EC 
Member State in a manner that was inconsiste nt with the Understandings.  On 21 January 
2002, the EC announced that Regulation (EC) NO. 2587/2001 had been adopted by the 
Council on 19 December 2001 and indicated th at through this Regulation the EC had 
implemented phase 2 of the Understa ndings with the US and Ecuador.  
 
7. WT/DS31 – Canada – Certain Measures Concerning Periodicals 
 Complaint by the United States. The implemen tation period was agreed by the parties to be 
15 months from the date of adoption of the reports  i.e. it expired on 30 October 1998.  Canada 
has withdrawn the contested measure. 
 
8. WT/DS33 – United States – Measure Affect ing Imports of Woven Wool Shirts and 
Blouses 
 Complaint by India.  The US announced that the measure was withdrawn as at 22 November 
1996, before the Panel had concluded its work.  Therefore, no implementation issue arose. 
 
9. WT/DS34 – Turkey – Restrictions on Imports of Textile and Clothing Products 
 Complaint by India.  At the DSB meeting of 19 November 1999, Turkey stated its intention to 
comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.  On 7 January 2000, the parties 
informed the DSB that they had agreed that the reasonable period of time for Turkey to implement the DSB's recommendations and ru lings would expire on 19 February 2001.  
Pursuant to the agreement reached, Turkey al so was to refrain from making more restrictive 
restrictions affecting imports of specified textile and clothing prod ucts from India, to increase 
the size of the quotas of India on certain specifie d textile and clothing pr oducts and to treat India 
no less favourably than any other Member with resp ect to the elimination of or modification of 
quantitative restrictions affecting any product covered by the agreement.   
  On 6 July 2001, the parties to the dispute notif ied the DSB that they have reached a mutually 
acceptable solution regard ing implementation by Turkey of the conclusions and 
recommendations adopted by the DSB on the matte r.  Pursuant to the Agreement, Turkey 
agreed to 
  (1) remove the quantitative restrictions it ap plies on textile categories 24 and 27 in respect 
of imports from India, by 30 June 2001 or th e date of signature of the Agreement;  
 (2) carry out tariff reductions on the applie d rate basis as described in annex to the 
Agreement, by 30 September 2001; 
 (3) strive towards early compliance with th e recommendations and rulings of the DSB.  
  Pursuant to the Agreement, the compensation would remain effective until Turkey removes all 
quantitative restrictions applied as of 1 January 1996 in respec t of imports from India for the 19 
categories of textil e and clothing products. 
 WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 178  
 
  At the meeting of the DSB on 18 December 2001, India made a statement concerning the lack 
of notification by Turkey of tariff reductions carried out as part of the implementation process. 
 
10. WT/DS46 – Brazil – Export Financing Programme for Aircraft 
 Complaint by Canada.  At th e DSB meeting of 19 November 1999,  Brazil announced that it had 
withdrawn the measures at issue within  90 days and had t hus implemented the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB.  
  On 23 November 1999, Canada requested the esta blishment of a panel under Article 21.5 of the 
DSU, requesting that the panel fi nd that Brazil had not taken measures to comply fully with the 
rulings and recommendations of the DSB.  Canada and Brazil reached an agreement concerning the procedures to be applicable pursuant to Ar ticles 21 and 22 of the DSU and Article 4 of the 
Subsidies Agreement.  At its meeting on 9 De cember 1999, the DSB agreed to reconvene the 
original panel pursuant to Article 21.5.  The re port of the Panel was circulated to the Members 
on 9 May 2000. 
  On 10 May, Canada requested authorization fro m the DSB to suspend the application to Brazil 
of concessions or other related obligations under the GATT, the Textiles Agreement and the 
Import Licensing Agreement, pursuant to Article 4.10 of the Subsidies Agreement and Article 
22.2 of the DSU, in an amount of Can$700 million per year.   
 
 On 22 May 2000, Brazil notified its intention to appeal certain issu es of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the review pane l.  At the DSB meeti ng on 22 May 2000, Brazil 
also requested arbitration, pursu ant to Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the Subsidies 
Agreement, to determine whether the countermeas ures requested by Cana da were appropriate.  
The DSB referred the matter to the original panel for arbitration, it being understood that no 
countermeasures would be  sought pending the report of the Appellate Body and until after the 
arbitration report.   
 
The report of the Appellate Body was circulat ed to Members on 9 Ma y 2000.  The Appellate 
Body upheld the review panel's conclusion that Brazil had failed to implement the 
recommendation of the DSB because of the con tinued issuance by Brazil of NTN-I bonds, after 
18 November 1999, pursuant to le tters of commitment  issued before 18 November 1999.  The 
Appellate Body also upheld the review panel's findings that pa yments made under the revised 
PROEX are prohibited by Article 3 of the Subsid ies Agreement and are not justified under item 
(k) of the Illustrative List of the same Agr eement.  The Appellate Body therefore upheld the 
review panel's conclusion that Brazil has failed to implement the recommendations of the DSB.  
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and th e panel report, as modi fied by the Appellate 
Body report, at its meeting on 4 August 2000.   
  Brazil stated its intention to bring future PR OEX operations in line with the recommendations 
of the DSB.  The arbitrator's report was ci rculated to Members on 28 August 2000.  The 
arbitrators found that the appropriate countermeas ures in this case amounted to C$344.2 million 
per year.  The arbitrators found that Canada ma y request authorization by the DSB to suspend 
tariff concessions or other obligations under GATT 1994, the Agreement on Textiles and 
Clothing and the Agreement on Import Lice nsing Procedures. At the DSB meeting of 12 
December 2000, Canada received, pursuant to Article 22.7 of th e DSU and Article 4.10 of the 
SCM Agreement, authorization from the DSB to  suspend the application to Brazil of tariff 
concessions or other obligations under GATT 1994, the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing 
and the Agreement on Import Lice nsing Procedures covering trade in a maximum amount of C$ 
344.2 million per year. On 12 December 
2000, Brazil advised the DSB of changes that it had  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 179 
 
 
 made to the measures at issue in this case a nd claimed that PROEX had been brought into 
compliance with Brazil's obligations under the SC M Agreement. Canada is of the view that 
Brazil continues to violate its SCM Agreement obligations. According to Canada, there is 
therefore a disagreement between Canada and Brazil as to whether the measures taken by Brazil to comply with the 20 August 1999 a nd 4 August 2000 rulings and recommendations 
of the DSB bring Brazil into conformity with the provisions of the SCM Agreement and result 
in the withdrawal of the export subsid ies to regional aircraft under PROEX. 
  On 22 January 2001, Canada requested the DSB to refer the matter again to the original panel, 
pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. At its me eting of 16 February 2001, the DSB referred the 
matter to the original panel. Australia, the EC and Korea reserved their third-party rights.  The 
Panel circulated its report on 26 July 2001.  At its meeting on 23 August 2001, the DSB adopted 
the Panel Report on this second rec ourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU. 
 
11. WT/DS50 – India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical 
Products 
 Complaint by the United Stat es.  At the DSB meeting of 22 April 1998, the parties announced 
that they had agreed on an implementation period of  15 months from the date of the adoption of 
the reports i.e. it expired on 16 April 1999.   India undertook to comply with the 
recommendations of the DSB within the implementation period.  On 14 January 1999, the US requested consultations with India in accord ance with Article 21.5 of the DSU (without 
prejudice to the US position on whether Article 21. 5 requires consultations before referring to 
the original panel.) regarding the Patents (Amendment) Ordinance, 1999 , promulgated by 
India to implement the rulings and recommendations of the DSB. On 29 January 1999, the European Communities requested to join the consultations. At the DSB meeting on 28 April 
1999, India presented its final status report on impl ementation of this matter which disclosed the 
enactment of the relevant legislation to impl ement the recommendations and rulings of the 
DSB. 
 
12. WT/DS54, WT/DS55, WT/DS59 and WT/D S64 – Indonesia – Certain Measures 
Affecting the Automobile Industry 
 Complaints by the United States, the European Communities and Japan.  Indonesia indicated its 
intention to comply with the recommendations of the DSB within the time permissible under 
Article 21 of the DSU.  On 8 October 1998, th e EC, pursuant to Arti cle 21.3 of the DSU, 
requested that the reasonable period of implem entation be determined by binding arbitration.  
The Arbitrator determined that the reasonable period of time  for Indonesia to implement the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB was 12 m onths from the date of adoption of the Panel 
Report i.e. it expired on 23 July 1999.  The repor t of the Arbitrator was circulated to Members 
on 7 December 1998.  By a communication date d 15 July 1999, Indonesia informed the DSB 
that it had issued a new automotive polic y on 24 June 1999 (the 1999 Automotive Policy), 
which effectively implemented the recommendati ons and rulings of the DSB in this matter. 
 
13. WT/DS56 – Argentina – Certain Measures A ffecting Imports of Footwear, Textiles, 
Apparel and Other Items 
 Complaint by the United Stat es.  At the DSB meeting on 22 June 1998, Argentina announced 
that it had reached an agreement on implemen tation with the US, whereby Argentina would 
reduce the statistical tax to 0.5% by 1 Januar y 1999, and cap specific duties on textiles and 
apparel at 35% by 19 October 1998.  At th e DSB meeting on 26 May 1999, Argentina 
announced that Decree 108/99, pursuant to wh ich no import transactions covered by the WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 180  
 
 statistical tax shall be taxed in excess of the amounts agreed between it and the United States, 
would enter into force on 30 May 1999.  
 
14. WT/DS58 – United States – Import Prohibit ion of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products 
 Complaint by India, Malaysia, Pakistan and Thailand. On 25 November 1998, the US 
informed the DSB that it was committed to implementing the recommendations of the DSB 
and was looking forward to discussing with the co mplainants the question of implementation.  
The parties to the dispute announced that they  had agreed on an implementation period of 13 
months from the date of adoption of the Appellate  Body and Panel Reports, i.e. it expired on 
6 December 1999.  On 22 December 1999, Mala ysia and the United States informed the DSB 
that they had reached an understanding rega rding possible proceedings under Articles 21 and 
22 of the DSU.   
  At the DSB meeting on 27 January 2000, the US stated that it had implemented the DSB's 
rulings and recommendations.  The US noted that it had issued revised guidelines 
implementing its Shrimp/Turtle law which were intended to (i) introduce greater flexibility in 
considering the comparability of foreign pr ogrammes and the US programme and (ii) 
elaborate a timetable and procedures for certification decisions.  The US also noted that it had undertaken and continued to undertake efforts to  initiate negotiations with the governments of 
the Indian Ocean region on the protection of sea turt les in that region.  Finally, the US stated 
that it offered and continued to offer technical training in the design, construction, installation 
and operation of TEDs to any government that  requested it.  See also Section VI.B. 
 
On 12 October 2000, Malaysia requested that th e matter be referred to  the original panel 
pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU, consideri ng that by not lifting the import prohibition and 
not taking the necessary measures to allow th e importation of certain shrimp and shrimp 
products in an unrestrictive manner, the United States had failed to comply with the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB. At its meeting of 23 October 2000, the DSB 
referred the matter to the original pa nel pursuant to Article 21.5 DSU.  
  On 9 July 2001, the US notified its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of 
law covered in the Panel Report a nd certain legal interpretations developed by the Panel.  On 
5 September 2001, the Appellate Body informed  the DSB that it would not be able to 
circulate its report within the 7 September deadlin e.  Accordingly, the Report is expected to 
be circulated no later than 8 October 2001. 
 
15. WT/DS69 – European Communities – Meas ures Affecting Importation of Certain 
Poultry Products 
 Complaint by Brazil.  The EC and Brazil announced at the DSB meeting on 21 October 1998, 
that they had reached a mutual agreement on a reasonable period of time for implementation, which was to be the period up to 31 March 1999. 
 
16. WT/DS70 – Canada – Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft 
 Complaint by Brazil.  At the DSB meeting of  19 November 1999, Canada announced that it had 
withdrawn the measures at issue within  90 days and thus had implemented the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB.  On 23 November 1999, Brazil requested the 
establishment of a panel under Article 21.5 beca use it believed  that Canada had not taken 
measures to comply fully with the rulings and recommendations of the DSB.  Brazil and 
Canada reached an agreement concerning the procedures to be applicable pursuant to Articles 
21 and 22 of the DSU and Article 4 of the Subsid ies Agreement.  At its meeting on 9 December  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 181 
 
 
 1999, the DSB agreed to reconvene the original panel pursuant to Arti cle 21.5 of the DSU.  
Australia, the EC and the US reserved their third-party rights.   
  The compliance panel report was circulated to Members on 9 May 2000.  The panel concluded 
that Canada's measures did not ensure that su ch Canada Account tran sactions would not be 
prohibited export subsidies.   
  On 22 May 2000, Brazil notified its intention to appeal certain issu es of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the review panel.  The report of the Appellat e Body was circulated 
to Members on 9 May 2000.  The Appellate Body f ound that Brazil had fail ed to establish that 
Canada has not implemented the recommendatio ns of the DSB.  The DSB adopted the 
Appellate Body report and the panel report, as modified by the Appell ate Body report, at its 
meeting on 4 August 2000.  Canada stated its intention to implement the recommendations of 
the DSB in respect of the Canada Account Programme. 
 17. WT/DS75 and WT/DS84 – Korea – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages 
 Complaints by the European Communities and the United States.  At the DSB meeting on 
19 March 1999, Korea informed the DSB that it was considering options for implementation of 
the DSB's recommendations.  On 9 April 1999, th e two complainants se parately requested, 
pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, that the reasonable period of time for Korea to implement the recommendations of the DSB be de termined by arbitration.  On 23 April 1999, 
the three parties to the dispute jointly info rmed the DSB that they had agreed on the 
appointment of an arbitrator for the determ ination of the reasonable period of time for 
implementation, and also that they had agreed that the arbitrator issue his arbitration award no later than 7 June 1999.  On 4 June 1999, the arbitr ator determined the reasonable period of time 
to be 11 months and two weeks. i.e. until 31 Ja nuary 2000.  At the DSB meeting on 27 January 
2000, Korea stated that it considered to ha ve fully implemented the DSB's rulings and 
recommendations by amending its Liquor Tax La w and the Education Tax Law to impose flat 
rates of 72% liquor tax and 30% education tax on all distilled alcoholic beverages on a non-
discriminatory basis. 
 
18. WT/DS76 – Japan – Measures Affecting Agricultural Products 
 Complaint by the United States.  Pursuant to Article 21.3 of the DSU, Japan informed the DSB 
on 13 April 1999 that it was studying ways in wh ich to implement the recommendations of the 
DSB.  In a joint communication, the two partie s informed the DSB on 15 June 1999, that they 
had agreed on an implementation period of 9 m onths and 12 days from the date of adoption of 
the reports, i.e. from 19 March to 31 December 1999.   
 
 On 31 December 1999, Japan abol ished the varietal testing re quirement as well as the 
"Experimental Guide" in accordance with the DSB's rulings.  At the DSB meeting on 14 January 2000, Japan also stated that it was c onducting consultations with the US regarding a 
new quarantine methodology for those products s ubject to import prohibitions because they 
were hosts of codling moth.  At the DSB me eting on 24 February 2000, Japan noted that it 
expected to reach a mutually satisfactory so lution with the US regarding a new quarantine 
methodology.   
  On 23 August 2001, Japan and the US notified to  the DSB that they had reached a mutually 
satisfactory solution with respect to conditions for lifting import prohibitions on the fruits and 
nuts at issue in the dispute. 
 WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 182  
 
 19. WT/DS79 – India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical 
Products 
 Complaint by the European Communities.  Indi a indicated at the DSB meeting of 21 October 
1998, that it needed a reasonable period of time  to comply with the DSB recommendations and 
that it intended to have bilateral consultations  with the EC to agree on a mutually acceptable 
period of time.  At the DSB meeting on 25 N ovember 1998, India read out a joint statement 
done with the EC, in which it was agreed that the implementation period in this dispute would 
correspond to the implementation period in a simi lar dispute brought by the US (DS50). At the 
DSB meeting on 28 April 1999, India presented it s final status report on implementation of 
DS50, which also applies to implementation in th is dispute.  The report disclosed the enactment 
of the relevant legislation to implement th e recommendations and rulings of the DSB.  
 
20. WT/DS87 and WT/DS110– Chile – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages 
 Complaints by the European Communities.  On 11 February 2000,  Chile informed the DSB that 
it was studying ways in which to implement the recommendations of the DSB, noting that any 
changes to its tax laws required the approva l of the National Congress and that it would 
therefore require a reasonable period of time to implement the recommendations of the DSB.  
On 15 March 2000, Chile requested, pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, that the reasonable 
period of time be determin ed by arbitration.   
  The report of the arbitrator  was circulated to Members on 23 May 2000.  The arbitrator 
determined, pursuant to Article 21.3 of the DSU, that the reasonable period of time for Chile to 
implement the recommendations and rulings of th e DSB is not more than 14 months and 9 days 
from 12 January 2000, i.e. Chile had until 21 Marc h 2001 to enact and put into effect a law 
appropriately amending the re levant tax legislation.  
 
 At the DSB meeting of 1 February 2001, Chile announced that implementing legislation  was 
adopted by a clear majority in both the Chambe r of Deputies and the Senate, and that its full 
entry into force awaits only on its promulgation by the President of the Republic and its publication in the Official Journal. Under this legislative reform, the existing rate of 27 per 
cent would be maintained for Pisco, while that same rate would be applied to other alcoholic 
beverages as from 21 March 2003.  In the meanti me, the tax applied to those spirits will be 
progressively reduced to 27 per cent. 
 
21. WT/DS90 – India – Quantitative Restrictions  on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and 
Industrial Products 
 Complaint by the United States.  At the DS B meeting of 14 October 1999, India stated its 
intention to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB, at the same time 
drawing attention to the Panel's suggestion that the reasonable period of time for 
implementation in this case could be longer than 15 months in view of the practice of the IMF, 
the BOP Committee and GATT and WTO panels of  granting longer phase-out periods for the 
elimination of BOP restrictions, and in view of India's status as a developing country Member.   
 
 On 28 December 1999, the parties informed the DSB that they ha d reached an agreement on the 
reasonable period of time for India to comply  with the recommendations and rulings of the 
DSB.  The reasonable period of time was to expire on 1 April 2000,  except for some tariff items 
to be notified by India to the US for which th e reasonable period of time was to expire on 
1 April 2001.  Pursuant to the agreement reached , India had to treat the US no less favourably 
than any other Member with respect to the elimination of or modification of quantitative 
restrictions affecting any product covered by th e agreement.  At the DSB meeting of 27 July  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 183 
 
 
 2000, India stated that it had notified to the Un ited States those tariff items for which the 
reasonable period is to expire on 1 April 2001 and that for all other items India had 
implemented the recommendation of the DSB by 1 April 2000. At the DSB meeting of 5 April 
2001, India a nnounced that, with effect from 1 Ap ril 2001, it had removed the quantitative 
restrictions on imports in respect of the re maining 715 items and had thus implemented the 
DSB's recommendations in this case. The United States  welcomed India's action and said that 
it had some specific questions to ask India in the next few days. 
 
22. WT/DS98 – Korea – Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Certain Dairy 
Products 
 Complaint by the European Co mmunities.  On 11 February 2000, Korea informed the DSB that 
it was studying ways in which to implement th e recommendations of the DSB.  On 21 March 
2000, the parties notified the DSB that they ha d agreed on a reasonable period of time for 
Korea's implementation of the reco mmendations of the DSB.  Pursuant to that agreement, the 
reasonable period expired on 20 May 2000. At  the DSB meeting of 26 September 2000, Korea 
informed the DSB that it had lifted its safeguard measure on  20 May 2000 and stated that it 
thereby had completed the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in this case. 
 
23. 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 13 April 1999, the United States informed the DSB it was studying 
ways in which to implement the recommendations  of the DSB.  At the DSB meeting on 26 July 
1999, the two parties notified the DSB that they  had agreed on an impl ementation period of 8 
months effective from the date of adoption of  the report, i.e. from 19 March 1999.  The 
reasonable period of time expired on 19 November 1999.   
 
 At the DSB meeting on 27 January 2000, the US st ated that it considered to have implemented 
the recommendations and rulings by the DSB.  The US recalled that the Commerce Department had amended section 351.222(b) by deleting the "n ot likely" standard and incorporating the 
"necessary" standard of the Anti-Dumping Agreem ent.  The Commerce De partment then issued 
a revised Final Results of Redetermination in th e Third Administrative Review on 4 November 
1999, concluding that, because a resumption of du mping was likely, it was necessary to leave 
the anti-dumping order in place.   
  On 9 March 2000, Korea informed the DSB that it believed that the measures taken by the 
United States to comply with the rulings and recommendations of the DSB were not consistent with the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article X: 1 of GATT 1994.  Korea therefore requested 
that this matter be referred to the original panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU.  On 6 April 
2000, Korea submitted a new request to the effect that the matter be referred to the original 
panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of  the DSU.  At its meeting on 25 April 2000, the DSB agreed to 
reconvene the original panel pursuant to Article 21. 5 of the DSU.  The EC reserved its reserved 
its third-party rights.   
 
 On 19 September 2000, Korea requested the Panel to suspend its work, including the issuance 
of the interim report, "until further notification" pursuant to Article 12.12 of the DSU.  The Panel, in a letter sent to the parties on 21 Se ptember 2000, agreed to this request.  On 20 
October 2000, the parties notified the DSB of a mutually satisfactory solution to the matter, 
involving the revocation of the antidumping order at issue as the result of a five-year "sunset" 
review by the US Department of Commerce. 
 WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 184  
 
 24. WT/DS103 and WT/DS113 – Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and 
the Exportation of Dairy Products 
 Complaints by the United States and New Zeal and.  At the DSB meeting of 19 November 1999, 
Canada stated its intention to comply with th e recommendations and rulings of the DSB.  On 
23 December 1999, Canada informed the DSB th at, pursuant to Article 21.3 of the DSU and 
after having agreed to extend the time periods set forth in Article 21.3(b) of the DSU, it has 
reached an understanding with the US and New Z ealand on four discrete periods of time to be 
accorded a staged implementation process.  Ac cording to the implementation agreement, 
Canada must complete the last stage of the implementation process no later than 31 December 2000. On 11 December 2000, Canada, the US a nd New Zealand informed the DSB that they 
had agreed to extend the reasonable period of time until 31 January 2001.  
  On 16 February 2001, both the US and New Ze aland requested the DSB to refer the matter to 
the original panel pursuant to Article 21.5 DS U. At its meeting of 1 March 2001, the DSB 
referred the matter to the original panel, if possible. Australia, the EC and Mexico reserved 
their third party rights. Also on 16 February 2001, both the US and New Zealand requested 
authorization from the DSB, pursuant to Article  22.2 DSU, to suspend the application to 
Canada of tariff concessions and related obligations under the GATT 1994, each covering 
trade in the amount of US$ 35 million on an a nnual basis. On 28 February 2001, Canada 
objected to the level of suspension and requested  that the matter be referred to arbitration 
pursuant to Article 22.6 DSU.  At its meeting of 1 March 2001, the DSB referred the matter to 
arbitration.  
  On 12 April 2001, the compliance Panel was composed.  It circulated its report on 11 July 
2001.  On 4 September 2001, Canada appealed the compliance Panel report.  The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members on 3 December 2001.  The Appellate Body 
concluded that, in the light of the factual findi ngs made by the Panel and the uncontested facts 
in the Panel record, it was unable to comple te the analysis of the claims made by 
New Zealand and the United States under Articles 9.1(c) or 10.1 of the  Agreement on Agriculture, or the claim made by the United States under Article 3.1 of the  SCM Agreement.  At its meeting on 18 D ecember 2001, the DSB adopted the Appellate 
Body Report and the Panel Report, as re versed by the Appellate Body Report. 
 
On 6 December 2001, the US submitted to the DSB a second recourse for the establishment 
of a panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU.   The US submitted that, since the Appellate 
Body's 21.5 Report did not make any findings on the consistency of Ca nada's new measures, 
the US continued to believe that Canada had failed to comply with the original 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB.  On the same date, New Zealand made a similar 
request.  At its meeting on 18 December 2001, the DSB agreed, pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU, to refer to the original Panel, for the second time, the matter raised by New Zealand 
and the US.  At the meeting, the EC and Australia  reserved third-party rights to participate in 
the Panel's proceedings.  On 28 December 2001, Argentina also reserved its third-party rights 
to participate in the Panel's proceedings. 
 
On 18 December 2001, Canada concluded with  New Zealand and the US respectively, 
additional understandings regarding proce dures under Article 21 and 22 of the DSU.  
Pursuant to both understandings, Canada and th e respective party agree to request that the 
arbitration requested by Canada under Article 22.6 of the DSU remain suspended pending the 
work of the compliance Panel.  
 
 On 17 January 2002, the second compliance Panel was composed.  On 26 July 2002, the 
Report was circulated to the Members.  On 23 September 2002, Canada notified its intention  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 185 
 
 
 to appeal certain issues of law and legal interp retations developed by the compliance panel.  
On 20 December 2002, the Appellate Body circulated its report.   
  On 16 January 2003, the parties informed the DS B that they had requested an extension of the 
suspension of the Art. 22.6 DSU arbitration until 7 February 2003, in orde r to permit time for 
further consultations.  On 6 Febr uary 2003, the parties informed the DSB that they had agreed 
that the arbitration remain suspended until 10 April 2003. On 9 April 2003, the parties informed the DSB that they had agreed to furt her suspend the arbitration until 9 May 2003.  
On 9 May 2003, Canada and the United States,  and Canada and New Zealand informed the 
DSB that they had reached a mutually agreed solution under Article 3.6 of the DSU in the 
disputes WT/DS103 and WT/DS113.  
 
25. WT/DS108 – United States – Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations" 
 Complaint by the European Communities.  Purs uant to Article 21.3 of the DSU, the US 
informed the DSB on 7 April 2000 of its intenti on to implement the recommendations of the 
DSB in a manner consistent with its WTO obligations.  At the request of the United States, at its 
meeting of 12 October 2000, the DSB modified the time-period for implementation so as to 
expire on 1 November 2000.  On 17 November 2000,  the US stated that, with the adoption on 
15 November 2000 of the FSC Repeal and Extrat erritorial Income Exclusion Act, it had 
implemented the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.  On the same date, the EC stated 
that, in its view, the US had failed to comply  with the DSB recommendations and rulings, and 
requested the US to enter into consultations with  the EC pursuant to Articles 4 and 21.5 of the 
DSU, Article 4 of the SCM Agreement, Article 19 of the Agreement on Ag riculture and Article 
XXIII:1 of GATT 1994.  Also on 17 November 2000, the EC requested authorisation from the 
DSB to take appropriate counter measures and suspend concessions pursuant to Article 4.10 of 
the SCM Agreement and Article 22.2 of the DSU.  
 
 Pursuant to an agreement between the parties to  the dispute, the US would request arbitration 
with respect to the EC's request and the arbitr ation would be suspended until the reconstituted 
panel has decided the conformity of the new US legislation with the panel and Appellate Body 
reports.  On 27 November 2000, the US requested that the matter be re ferred to arbitration 
pursuant to Article 22.6 of the DSU. On 7 December 2000, the EC notified the DSB that 
consultations had failed to settle the dispute a nd that it was requesting the establishment of a 
panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of  the DSU. At its meeting of 20 December, the DSB agreed to 
refer the matter to the original panel.  On 21 December 2000, pursuant to an agreement 
between the parties, the US and the EC jointl y requested the Article 22.6 DSU arbitrator to 
suspend the arbitration proceeding until adoption of  the panel report or, if there is an appeal, 
adoption of the Appellate Body report.  Th e arbitration was accordingly suspended. 
  On 20 August 2001, the compliance panel report was circulated to the Members.  The Panel 
concluded that the amended FSC legislation was s till inconsistent with Articles 3.1(a) and 3.2 
of the SCM Agreement, with 10.1 and 8 of  the Agreement on Agriculture and with 
Article III:4 of the GATT 1994. 
 
On 15 October 2001, the US notified its decision to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the panel report.  On 14 Janua ry 2002, the Appellate Body 
circulated its Report to the Members. The Appella te Body upheld the Panel's findings that the 
US acted inconsistently with its obligati ons under the SCM Agreement, the Agreement 
on Agriculture, and the GATT 1994 through the FSC amended legislation,  a measure taken by 
the United States to implement the recommendations and rulings made by the DSB in the original proceedings in the  United States – FSC  dispute.  With respect to third party rights, 
the Appellate Body found that the Panel erred in  its interpretation of Article 10.3 of the DSU WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 186  
 
 in declining to rule that  all  written submissions of the parties filed prior to the first meeting 
of the Panel must be provided to the third parties.   At its meeting on 29 January 2002, the DSB a dopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel 
Report, as upheld by the Appellate Body Re port.  In accordance with the procedural 
agreement concluded by the parties to the di spute in September 2000 (WT/DS108/12), Article 
22.6 arbitration on the amount of countermeasu res and suspension of concessions would be 
automatically reactivated. 
  On 30 August 2002, the Arbitrator's award was circ ulated.  The Arbitrator determined that the 
suspension by the EC of concessions under the GATT 1994 in the form of the imposition of a 
100 per cent ad valorem  charge on imports of certain goods from the United States in a 
maximum amount of $4,043 million per year, as described in the EC's request for authorization to take countermeasures and su spend concessions, would constitute appropriate 
countermeasures within the meaning of Article 4.10 of the SCM Agreement. 
 
 On 24 April 2003, the EC requested authorizati on to suspend concessions or other obligations 
under Article 22.7 of the DSU and Article 4.10 of the SCM Agreement.  At its meeting on 
7 May 2003, the DSB granted the EC authoriza tion to take appropria te countermeasures and 
to suspend concessions.  
 
On 5 November 2004, the EC requested the US to enter into consultations under Articles 4 and 
21.5 of the DSU, Article 4 of the SCM Agreement , Article 19 of the Agreement on Agriculture 
and Article XXII:1 of GATT 1994 with respect to the American JOBS Creation Act of 2004  
(the "JOBS Act") enacted by the US on 22 October 2004. According to the EC, the JOBS Act was intended to implement the DSB recommenda tions and rulings in this case (compliance 
phase) but failed to do so properly and was inconsistent with the same provisions of the WTO 
Agreement  as did the predecessor legislation. In  particular, the European Communities 
considers that Section 101 of the JOBS Act c ontains transitional provisions which will allow 
US exporters to continue to benefit from  the WTO incompatible FSC Replacement and 
Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act (a) in th e years 2005 and 2006 with respect to all export 
transactions and (b) for an indefinite period w ith respect to certain binding contracts, thus 
failing to withdraw the subsidy and implem ent the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  
On 17 November 2004, Australia reques ted to join the consultations.  
 On 13 January 2005, the EC notified the DSB that consultations had failed to settle the dispute 
and that it was requesting the es tablishment of a panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. At 
its meeting of 25 January 2005, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. At its meeting 
of 17 February 2005, the DSB agreed to refer the matter to the original panel.   
 
26. WT/DS114 – Canada – Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products 
 Complaint by the European Communities and thei r member States.  Pursua nt to Article 21.3 of 
the DSU, Canada informed the DSB on 25 Apri l 2000 that it would require a reasonable period 
of time in order to implement the recommendations  of the DSB.  Since the parties failed to 
reach a mutually satisfactory solution as to th e "reasonable period of time" for implementation 
of the recommendations of the DSB, despite a mu tually agreed extension of the period of time 
foreseen in Article 21.3(b) of the DSU, on 9 June 2000, the European Communities and their 
member States requested that the reasonable pe riod of time be determined by arbitration 
pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU.  The ar bitrator determined, pursuant to Article 21.3 of 
the DSU, that the reasonable period of time fo r Canada to implement the recommendations and 
rulings of the DSB is six months from the date  of adoption of the panel report and that the 
reasonable period would thus end on 7 October 2000.  At the DSB meeting of 23 October 2000,  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 187 
 
 
 Canada informed Members that, effective fro m 7 October 2000, it had implemented the DSB's 
recommendations.   
 
27. WT/DS121 – Argentina – Safeguard Me asures on Imports of Footwear 
 Complaint by the European Communities.  Pursuant to Article 21.3 of the DSU, Argentina 
informed the DSB on 11 February 2000 that the sa feguard measure would remain in force until 
25 February 2000 and, by that date, the meas ures aimed at complying with the DSB's 
recommendations and ruling would be adopted.  
 
28. 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.  Thailand informed the DS B that it was in the process of identifying the 
most suitable way to comply with the DSB's recommendations in this case and that it would 
need a reasonable period of time for implementati on. Poland reiterated its position that in 
order to implement the DSB's recommendations in this case Thailand would have to revoke 
the duties currently in place.  If not, Poland would seek recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU.  
Poland was ready to enter into consultations w ith Thailand on a reasonable period of time for 
implementation.  On 25 May 2001, the parties to  the dispute informed the DSB that they had 
agreed that the reasonable period of time shall be  6 months and 15 days and therefore expired 
on 20 October 2001.    
At the DSB meeting on 18 December 2001, Thaila nd announced that it had fully implemented 
the DSB's recommendations.  Poland said that it could not accept the way in which Thailand 
had implemented the DSB's recommendations because it expected that the measures in question would be either rescinded or modified.  In Poland's view, Thailand only changed the 
justification for the imposition of the measures.  Poland reserved its rights under Article 21.5 
of the DSU. 
  On 18 December 2001, Thailand and Poland co ncluded an understanding with regard to 
possible proceedings under Article 21 and 22 of the DSU.  Pursuant to the understanding, in the event that Poland initiates proceedings under Articles 21.5 and 22 of the DSU, Poland 
agrees to initiate complete proceedings under 21.5  prior to any proceedings under Article 22.  
On 21 January 2002, the parties informed the DSB that they have reached an agreement to the 
effect that the implementation of the recommenda tions of the DSB in this dispute should no 
longer remain on the agenda of the DSB.   
 
29. WT/DS126 – Australia – Subsidies Provided to  Producers and Exporters of Automotive 
Leather 
 Complaint by the United States.  On 17 Septem ber 1999, Australia informed the DSB that it had 
implemented the recommendations and rulings of  the DSB.  On 4 October 1999, the United 
States informed the DSB that it believed that th e measures taken by Australia to comply with 
the rulings and recommendations of the DSB were not consistent  with the Subsidies Agreement 
and the DSU, and therefore requested that th e original panel be reconvened pursuant to 
Article 21.5 of the DSU. The EC and Mexico reserved their third-party rights.  The United 
States and Australia reached an agreement concerning  certain procedures to be applicable in this 
case under Articles 21 and 22.  That agreement provided, inter alia , that Australia will not raise 
any procedural objection to the establishment of a panel in accordance with Article 21.5 of the 
DSU, while the United States will not request au thorization to suspend concessions pursuant to 
Article 22.2 of the DSU until after the review panel has circulated its report.  Also, it has been 
agreed that neither party will appeal the review panel's report.   WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 188  
 
  
 At its meeting on 14 October 1999, the DSB agreed to reconvene the original panel pursuant to 
Article 21.5 of the DSU.  The EC and Mexico rese rved their third-party rights.  On 1 November 
1999, the Compliance Panel was composed.  The compliance panel report was circulated to 
Members on 21 January 2000.  The compliance pane l determined that Australia had failed to 
comply with the DSB's recommendations within 90  days, and thus had not taken measures to 
comply with the recommendation of the DSB in this dispute.  The DSB adopted the review panel's report on 11 February 2000.  On 24 July 2000,  the parties notified the DSB that they had 
reached a mutually satisfactory solution in re gard to implementation of the findings of the 
review panel. 
 30. WT/DS132 – Mexico – Anti-Dumping Investigation of High-Fructose Corn Syrup 
(HFCS) from the United States 
 Complaint by the United States.  Pursuant to  Article 21.3 of the DSU, Mexico informed the 
DSB on 20 March 2000 that it was studying ways in  which to implement the recommendations 
of the DSB.  Mexico also indicated that it woul d need a reasonable period of time in order to 
implement the DSB recommendations.  On 19 Ap ril 2000, the parties in formed the DSB that 
they had agreed, pursuant to Arti cle 21.3(b) of the DSU, on a re asonable period of time to be 
granted to Mexico to implemen t the recommendations of the DSB.  That period expired on 
22 September 2000.  At the DSB meeting of 26 September 2000, Mexico stated that it had 
published on 20 September 2000 the final determination on anti-dumping investigation of high-
fructose corn syrup from the US  and thereby complied with the DSB's recommendation.  US 
stated that it would examine Mexico's final determination.  
  On 12 October 2000, the US requested that the DSB refer the matter to  the original panel, 
pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU, in orde r to establish whether Mexico had correctly 
implemented the DSB's recommendations. At its meeting of 23 October 2000, the DSB 
referred the matter to the original panel pursuan t to Article 21.5 of the DSU. The EC, Jamaica 
and Mauritius reserved their third- party rights to participate in  the Panel's proceedings. The 
US and Mexico informed the DSB that they were discussing mutually agreeable procedures 
under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU in relation to this matter.   
 
 The Article 21.5 Panel circulated its repor t on 22 June 2001. The Panel considered that 
Mexico has failed to implement the recommenda tion of the original Panel and the DSU to 
bring its measure into conformity with  its obligations under the AD Agreement. 
  On 24 July 2001, Mexico appealed the above Panel report.  On 20 September 2001, the 
Appellate Body informed that the issuance of the report would be delayed.  The report was 
circulated to WTO Members on 22 October 2001.  The DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as upheld by the A ppellate Body report, on 21 November 2001.   
 
31. WT/DS136 and WT/DS162 – United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 
 Complaints by the European Communities (W T/DS136) and Japan (WT/DS162).  At the DSB 
meeting of 23 October 2000, the US stated that it was its intention to implement the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings.  The US also stated that it would require a reasonable period of time for implementation and that it would consult with the EC and Japan on this matter.  On 
17 November 2000, the EC and Japan requested that the reasonable period of time be 
determined by arbitration pursuant to Article 21.3(c)  of the DSU.  The arbitrator circulated his 
report on 28 February 2001.  He decided that the reasonable period of time in this case was 10 
months and would thus expire on 26 July 2 001. At its meeting on 24 July 2001, the DSB 
agreed to the US proposal to extend the r easonable period of time until 31 December 2001 or  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 189 
 
 
 the end of the current session of the US Congress, whichever earlier.  This extension had been 
agreed with the parties. 
  At the DSB meeting on 18 December 2001, the US informed that on 23 July 2001 it 
submitted proposed legislation to the US Congr ess repealing the 1916 Act and terminating all 
pending actions under the Act..  It added that, since the US Congress has not yet been 
adjourned, the US Administration continued to  seek passage of the proposed legislation.  
Japan urged the US to complete the implemen tation within the reasonable period of time.  
However, in the event of non-compliance by th e US, Japan will use its rights under Article 22 
of the DSU.  The EC also indicated that if the US would fail to comply with the DSB's 
recommendations, it would have no choice, but to request the authorization to suspend 
concessions or other obligations under Article 22. 2 of the DSU.  On 7 January 2002, on the 
grounds that that the US had failed to brin g its measures into conformity within the 
reasonable period of time, the EC and Japan re quested authorisation to suspend concessions 
pursuant to Article 22.2 of the DSU.  Bo th Members propose that the suspension of 
concessions takes the form of an equivalent legislation to the Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 
against imports from the US.  On 17 January 2002, the US objected to the levels of suspension of obligations proposed by the EC and Japan and requested the DSB to refer the matter to arbitration, in accordance with Article  22.6 of the DSU.  The US claimed that the 
principles and procedures of Article 22.3 had not been followed by the EC and Japan.  At the 
DSB meeting on 18 January 2002, the matter was re ferred to arbitration.  During the meeting, 
the parties indicated that they were still engage d in consultations and would be requesting the 
arbitrators, once appointed, to suspend their work  with a view to exploring the possibility of 
finding a mutually satisfactory solution.  On 25 February 2002, the US submitted to the DSB 
a status report regarding implementation of the DSB recommendations and rulings. On 27 
February 2002, the parties requested  the arb itrator to suspend the arbitration proceeding 
noting that a proposal to repeal the 1916 Act and to terminate cases pending under the Act 
was being examined by the US Congress.  The parties noted, however, that the arbitration 
proceeding could be reactivated at the request  of either party afte r 30 June 2002 if no 
substantial progress would have been made in resolving the dispute by then.   
  At the DSB meeting on 17 April 2002, th e US submitted its Status Report regarding 
implementation of the DSB recommendations and rulings.  The US stated that a bill had 
already been introduced to repeal the 1916 Antidumping Act and terminate some pending cases.  While acknowledging the progress made, th e EC and Japan stressed the necessity for 
prompt compliance.  Japan noted that under its bilateral agreement with the US, either party 
could re-activate the arbitration pro ceedings after 30 June 2002.     
  
At the DSB meeting on 22 May 2002, the US su bmitted its status report regarding the 
implementation of the DSB recommendations and ru lings.  The US stated that on 23 April 2002 
a bill had been introduced in the US Senate which would repeal the 1916 Act and apply to all 
pending court cases.  
 At the DSB meeting on 24 June 2002, the US submitted a status report where it stated that a 
bill had already been introduced in the US  Congress to repeal the 1916 Anti-Dumping Act 
and to terminate some pending cases, and that it was continuing its efforts to find a mutually 
satisfactory solution to this dispute with th e EC and Japan.  The EC and Japan expressed 
concern about the lack of progress in this matte r and urged the US to repeal the 1916 Act as 
soon as possible.  Japan cautioned the US that it might reactivate arbitration proceedings if 
the 1916 Act was not repealed by 30 June.  At the DSB meeting on 29 July 2002, the US reiterated the above statement.  The EC a nd Japan expressed concern about the lack of 
progress in this matter and urged the United Stat es to repeal the 1916 Act as soon as possible.  
They noted that proceedings against some of their companies might resume very soon and WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 190  
 
 that it was imperative for swift action to be taken by the United States to prevent their 
companies from incurring huge expenses to de fend themselves under legislation which had 
been found to be inconsistent with WTO rules  
  At the DSB meeting on 1 October 2002, the US s ubmitted its status report and, in reference to 
the concerns expressed by the EC and Japan at the previous meetings of the DSB, stated that 
the bills currently before the Congress would repeal the 1916 Act and apply to all pending 
cases.  The EC and Japan expressed concern a bout the lack of progress and indicated that 
swift action was imperative to prevent their companies from incurring huge expenses under WTO-inconsistent legislation. 
 
At the DSB meeting on 11 November 2002, the US indicated that that the US Administration would continue to work with the US Congr ess following the Congressi onal recess to achieve 
further progress in resolving this dispute.  The EC and Japan expressed concern about the lack 
of progress in this matter and urged the United States to repeal the 1916 Act without further 
delay.  They noted that proceedings against some of their companies had resumed and that it 
was imperative for swift action to be taken by the US to prevent their companies from incurring huge expenses to defend themselves unde r legislation which had been found to be 
inconsistent with WTO rules.  The EC said that  the US status report was incomplete, as it did 
not mention the bill introduced by Representativ e Henry Hyde last June, which if adopted, 
would repeal the 1916 Act, but would not affect pending cases.  For the EC, this would be 
unacceptable, as it would not fully comply with  the recommendations and rulings of the DSB 
 
At the DSB meeting on 28 November 2002, the US  reiterated that the bills repealing the 1916 
Act which had been introduced in the US Congr ess, would apply to all pending court cases.  It 
further stated that the US Administration woul d continue to work with the US Congress after 
the Congressional recess to achieve further progress  in resolving this dispute.  The EC and 
Japan expressed concern about the lack of progr ess in this matter and urged the US to repeal 
the 1916 Act without further delay. They also  reiterated their concern about the bill 
introduced by Representative Henry Hyde on June  2002, which if adopted, would repeal the 
1916 Act, but would not affect pending cases.  They noted that such a result would be unacceptable, as it would not fully comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.  
At the DSB meeting on 27 January 2003, the US re peated its previous status reports and the 
EC and Japan reiterated their concerns. 
 
Given that no legislation had been adopted to  repeal the 1916 Act and to terminate the cases 
pending before the US courts, on 19 September 2003 the EC requested the Arbitrators to 
reactivate the arbitration proceeding in disput e WT/DS136.  In accordance with the request 
from the EC, the Arbitrators resumed the arbitration proceeding on the same day.   
 
In respect of the arbitration proceeding in dispute WT/DS136, on 24 February 2004 the decision by the Arbitrators was circulated to  Members. In light of the fact that the 
nullification or impairment results from the 1916 Act "as such", and not from particular 
instances of application of that law, the Arbitrators decided to set a number of parameters  ((i) 
damages paid by EC companies as a result of judgements under the 1916 Act and (ii) amount 
of any settlement reached between an EC compan y and a US complainant pursuant to a 1916 
Act complaint) with which the EC will have to  comply when calculating by itself the amount 
of countermeasures it plans to impose, rather than  setting a fixed value of trade which the EC  
should not exceed when suspending its WTO obligations against the US.  
  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 191 
 
 
 32. 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.  At  the DSB meeting on 5 July 2000, the United 
States announced that it considered to have  implemented the recommendations of the DSB 
with regard to the case concerning its counter vailing duty order on certain hot-rolled lead and 
bismuth carbon steel products originating in the United Kingdom.  As a follow-up to this case, 
the EC has filed a new complaint against th e US continued application of countervailing 
duties based on the "change of ownership"  methodology.  For further information, see 
WT/DS212.  
33. WT/DS139 and WT/DS142 – Canada – Certai n Measures Affecting the Automotive 
Industry 
 Complaints by Japan and the European Communiti es.  Pursuant to Article 21.3 of the DSU, 
Canada informed the DSB on 19 July 2000 that it would comply with the recommendations of 
the DSB.  One of the recommendations made by the DSB was that Canada withdraw within 90 
days the export subsidy found to be inconsistent w ith Article 3.1(a) of the Subsidies Agreement.  
On 4 August 2000, Japan and the European Communi ties requested, pursuan t to Article 21.3(c) 
of the DSU, that the reasonable period of time be determined by arbitr ation. The arbitrator 
determined that the "reasonable period of time" was 8 months from the date of adoption of the 
Appellate Body and Panel Reports, as modifi ed by the Appellate Body Report.  The 
"reasonable period of time" was thus  to expire on 19 February 2001 . At the DSB meeting of 
12 March 2001, Canada stated that, as of 18 Fe bruary 2001, it had complied with the DSB's 
recommendations. 
 
34. WT/DS141 – European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Cotton-
Type Bed-Linen from India 
 Complaint by India.  At the DSB meeting of 5 April 2001, the EC announced its intention to 
implement the DSB's recommendations in this case and said that it would need a reasonable period of time to do so.  Indi a said that the EC could complete its implementation process 
within a very short period of time. On 26 Apr il 2001, the parties to the dispute notified the 
DSB that they had mutually agreed that the reasonable period of time shall be five months and two days, that is from 12 Ma rch 2001 until 14 August 2001.   
 
 The EC amended its regulation imposing a de finitive anti-dumping duty on imports of cotton-
type bed linen originating in Egypt, India and Pakistan and suspending its application with 
regard to imports originating in India by the deadline of 14 August 2001.   However, India, at 
the 23 August meeting of the DSB, made a statement whereby it expressed the view that the 
new EC Regulation did not bring the EC legi slation into full compliance with the DSB's 
recommendations.   
  On 13 September 2001, India and the EC informed the DSB that they had reached an 
understanding regarding the procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU.  This 
understanding foresees that if on the basis of the results of proceedings under Article 21.5 that 
might be initiated by India, India decides to  initiate proceedings under Article 22, the EC 
would not assert that India is precluded from doing so because its request was made outside the 30 day time-period. 
  On 8 March 2002, India sought recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU (request for 
consultations), stating that there was disagreemen t as to the existence or consistency with a 
covered agreement of measures taken to comply  with the recommendations and rulings.  On 4 WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 192  
 
 April 2002, India requested the establishment of  a compliance panel. At the DSB meeting on 
17 April 2002, India informed the DSB that pur suant to an understanding reached between the 
EC and India, it was requesting the withdrawal  of the item from the agenda in accordance 
with Rule 6 of the Rules of Procedure for WTO meetings.  The DSB agreed to India's request. 
 
 On 7 May 2002, India again requested the est ablishment of a compliance panel. At the DSB 
meeting on 22 May 2002, it was agreed that, if po ssible, the matter would be referred to the 
original panel.  The United States reserved its  third party rights to participate in the 
proceedings.   
  35. WT/DS146 and WT/DS175 – India – Measures Affecting the Automotive Sector 
Complaints by the European Communities (WT/DS146) and the United States (WT/DS175).  
On 2 May 2002, India informed the DSB that it would need a reasonable period of time to 
implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB and that it was ready to enter into discussions with the EC and the US in this regard. 
 
 On 18 July 2002, the parties informed the DSB that they had mutually agreed that the 
reasonable period of time to implement the recomme ndations and rulings of the DSB, shall be 
five months, that is from 5 April 2002 to 5 September 2002. 
  On 6 November 2002, India informed the DSB that it had fully complied with the 
recommendations of the DSB in this dispute by issuing Public Notice No. 31 on 19 August 
2002 terminating the trade balancing requirement .  India also informed that earlier it had 
removed the indigenisation requirement vide  Public Notice No. 30 on 4 September 2001.  
 
36. WT/DS155 – Argentina – Measures on the Export of Bovine Hides and the Import of 
Finished Leather 
 Complaint by the European Communities.  At the DSB meeting of 12 March 2001, Argentina 
stated its intention to implement the DSB's r ecommendations and indicated that it would need 
a reasonable period of time to do so.  On 14 May 2001, the EC requested that the reasonable period of time be determined through binding arbitration pursuant to Article 21.3(c).  On 
31 August 2001, the Arbitrator circulated its  award whereby the reasonable period of time 
was fixed at 12 months and 12 days from 16 Febr uary 2001.  This period was therefore to 
expire on 28 February 2002.   
   In view of the concrete action undertak en by Argentina to comply with the DSB 
recommendations and rulings during the reasonable pe riod of time in this dispute, and in light 
of the economic problems that Argentina is currently facing, the parties agreed on the 
following procedures: the parties would pursue their discussions on compliance by Argentina with the DSB recommendations and rulings; and the EC would retain the right to make a 
request for authorization to suspend concessions  or other obligations under the DSU at any 
time after the expiry of the reasonable pe riod of time, but only after completion of 
proceedings under Article 21.5 DSU.  On 25 Febr uary 2002, the parties requested the DSB to 
circulate their agreement on procedures under Ar ticles 21 and 22 of the DSU.   On 8 March 
2002, the parties notified the DSB of their agreement.    
 
37. WT/DS156 – Guatemala – Definitive Anti-dum ping Measure regarding Grey Portland 
Cement from Mexico 
 Complaint by Mexico.  At the DSB meeting of 12 December 2000, in accordance with Article 
21.3 of the DSU, Guatemala informed the DSB that in October 2000 it had removed its anti- WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 193 
 
 
 dumping measure and had thus complied w ith the DSB's recommendations. Mexico 
welcomed Guatemala's implementation in this case. 
 
38. WT/DS160 – United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act 
 Complaint by the European Communities.  Pursuant to Article 21.3 of the DSU, the US 
informed the DSB on 24 August 2000 that it would implement the recommendations of the 
DSB.  The US proposed 15 months as a reasonable period of time within which to implement those recommendations.  On 23 October 2000, the EC  requested that the reasonable period of 
time for implementation be determined by means of binding arbitration as provided for in Article 21.3 (c) DSU. The Arbitrator circulated  his Award on 15 January 2001. The Arbitrator 
determined that the reasonable period of time for the US to implement the recommendations 
and rulings of the DSB in this case is 12 mont hs from the date of the adoption of the panel 
report.  At its meeting of 24 July 2001, the DSB agreed to the US proposal to extend the reasonable period of time until 31 December 2001 or  the end of the current session of the US 
Congress, whichever earlier.  This exte nsion had been agreed with the EC. 
 
On 23 July 2001, the US and the EC notified the DSB of their agreement to pursue arbitration pursuant to Article 25.2 of the DSU in order to determine the level of nullification or impairment of benefits to the EC as result of Section 110(5)(B) of the US Copyright Act.  On 
9 November 2001, the arbitrator determined that  the level of EC benefits which were being 
nullified or impaired as a result of the opera tion of Section 110(5)(B) amounted to Euro 
1,219,900 per year. 
 At the DSB meeting on 18 December 2001, the US indicated that it was engaged in productive discussions with the EC with a view to resolving the dispute before the end of the expiry of the reasonable period of time.  The EC underlined that the resolution of the dispute 
required an amendment of the WTO-inconsistent legislation.  The EC stated that if it was not 
possible to conclude any arrangements before the end of the reasonable period of time, it 
would have to seek the DSB's authorization to  suspend concessions or other obligations under 
Article 22.2 of the DSU.  On 7 January 2002, on the grounds that that the US had failed to bring its measures into conformity within th e reasonable period of time, the EC requested 
authorisation to suspend concessions pursuant to  Article 22.2 of the DSU.  The EC proposed 
to suspend concessions under the TRIPs Agreement in order to permit the levying of a special 
fee from US nationals in connection with bor der measures concerning copyright goods.  On 
17 January 2002, the US objected to the level of suspension of obligations proposed by the EC and requested the DSB to refer the matter to  arbitration, in accordance with Article 22.6 
of the DSU.  The US claimed that the principles and procedures of Article 22.3 had not been 
followed.  During the DSB meeting on 18 January 2002, the parties indicated, however, that 
they were engaged in constructive negotiati ons and were hopeful of finding a mutually 
satisfactory solution.  On 25  February 2002, the US subm itted a status report regarding 
implementation of the DSB recommendations and rulings.  On 26 February 2002, the parties 
requested the arbitrator to suspend the ar bitration proceeding, while noting that the 
proceeding may be reactivated at the request of either party after 1 March 2002.  
 
At the DSB meeting on 17 April 2002, the US presented a status report on its progress in 
implementing the DSB's recommendations and rulings .  The US indicated that it was engaged 
in discussions with the EC to find a positive a nd mutually acceptable solu tion to the dispute.  
The EC expressed its concern about the US' slow progress in implementation and requested 
the US to provide more information in its next  status report.  Australia also expressed its 
concern about the delay and requested that  any compensatory arrangement between the 
parties must be applied on a non-discriminatory basis.  WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 194  
 
  At the DSB meeting on 24 June 2002, the US  presented a status report on its progress in 
implementing the DSB's recommendations.  The US stated that the US Administration was engaged in discussions with Congress and the EC  in order to reach a mutually acceptable 
resolution to the dispute. The EC acknowledge d the efforts being undertaken by the US 
Administration, but underlined the importance of the US to bring its measures into conformity 
with its obligations under the TRIPS Agreement.   Australia reiterated its concern about the 
delay by the US in implementing the recommenda tions and rulings of the DSB and requested 
again that any compensatory arrangement reached  between the parties must be applied on a 
non-discriminatory basis.  At the DSB meeting on 29 July 2002, the US reiterated its previous 
statement.  The EC acknowledged the efforts being made by the US Administration, but 
expressed concern about the significant delay in the implementation of the recommendations 
and rulings of the DSB.  He inquired whether it would be possible for Congress to take action 
very soon considering the summer recess and legi slative elections scheduled to take place in 
the fall. 
 
 At the DSB meeting on 1 October 2002, the US  presented its status report regarding the 
implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  At that meeting, the US stated that its administration was engaged in discussi on with Congress and the EC to find a mutually 
acceptable solution. The EC inquired about the prospects of a solution in the short run. 
Australia stated that since its views were well-known it did not wish to repeat those. It also 
indicated that it had made a proposal in the cont ext of the DSU negotiations to deal with its 
concerns. 
  At the DSB meetings on 11 November 2002, 28 November 2002 and 27 January 2003, the 
US presented  status reports where it stated that  the US and the EC were committed to finding 
a positive and mutually acceptable solution to th e dispute and that the US Administration 
would continue to engage the US Congress follo wing the Congressional recess with a view to 
settling this dispute as soon as practicable.  The EC expressed disappointment with the lack of 
implementation by the US and urged the US to take rapid and concrete  action to settle this 
dispute. 
  On 23 June 2003, the US and the EC informed the DSB of a mutually satisfactory temporary 
arrangement. 
 
39. WT/DS161 and WT/DS169 Korea – Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled, and 
Frozen Beef 
 Complaints by the United States and Australia.  At the DSB meeting of 2 February 2001, 
Korea announced that it had already impl emented some elements of the DSB's 
recommendations and that in order to complete  the process it would need a reasonable period 
of time. On 19 April 2001, the parties to the di spute notified the DSB that they had mutually 
agreed that the reasonable period of time sha ll be 8 months, and was thus to expire on 
10 September 2001. 
 
 At the DSB meeting on 25 September 2001, Ko rea announced that it had implemented the 
DSB's recommendation by the deadline, i.e. 10 September.  The US indicated that it will continue to work with Korea to ensure that the replacement measures resulted in full market 
access for US beef.   
  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 195 
 
 
 40. WT/DS166 – United States – Definitive Safegu ard Measure on Imports of Wheat Gluten 
from the European Communities 
 Complaint by the European Communities.  At  the DSB meeting of 16 February 2001, the US 
announced that it intended to implement the recommendations and rulings contained in the panel and Appellate Body repor ts. On 20 March 2001, the EC requested that the reasonable 
period of time for implementa tion be determined by binding arbitration pursuant to 
Article 21.3(c) DSU. On 10 April 2001, the parties to the dispute notified the DSB that they had mutually agreed that the reasonable period of  time shall be four months and 14 days, that 
is from 19 January 2001 to 2 June 2001. 
 41. WT/DS170 – Canada – Patent Protection Term 
 Complaint by the United States.  At the DSB meeting of 23 October 2000, Canada stated that 
it was its intention to implement the DSB's r ecommendations and rulings. Canada said that it 
would require a reasonable period of time for implementation and that it would consult with 
the United States on this matter. On 15 December  2000, the US requested that the reasonable 
period of time for implementation by Canada be determined by binding arbitration pursuant to 
Article 21.3(c) of the DSU. The arbitrator circulated his report on 28 February 2001. He decided that the reasonable period of time in th is case was 10 months and was thus to expire 
on 12 August 2001. 
 
42. WT/DS176 – United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act 
 Complaint by the European Communities and its member States.  At the DSB meeting on 
19 February 2002, the US stated that it needed a reasonable period of time to comply with the rulings and recommendations of the DSB.  On  28 March 2002, the US and the EC informed 
the DSB that they have reached a mutual ag reement on the reasonable period of time for the 
US to implement the recommendations and rulin gs of the DSB.  The reasonable period of 
time will expire on 31 December 2002, or on the da te on which the current session of the US 
Congress adjourns, and in no event later than 3 January 2003.  
  At the DSB meeting on 1 October 2002, the US  presented its status report regarding the 
implementation of the DSB's recommendations and ru lings.   The US referred to the mutually 
agreed reasonable period of time. It also stat ed that the US Administration was consulting 
with the Congress to determine the appropriate statutory measures needed to be taken to 
resolve the dispute. Both the EC and Cuba e xpressed their expectation that a solution would 
be found within the agreed reasonable period of time.   
 
At the DSB meeting on 28 November 2002, the US presented a status report where it said that 
the reasonable period of time for the implemen tation of the recommendations and rulings of 
the DSB would expire on 31 December 2002, or on the date on which the current session of the US Congress adjourned, whichever was later, and in no event later than 3 January 2003.  
He further stated that the US Administration was working with the US Congress with a view 
to resolving this dispute.  The EC said that th e EC was open to all solutions that would favour 
compliance by the US with its obligations under the WTO Agreement.  While the EC 
expected to find a mutually satisfactory solutio n to the dispute with the US, it was concerned 
about recent pronouncements by the US Administra tion that there was no need to clarify that 
Section 211 did not apply in cases where the tr ademark had been abandoned by the original 
owner.  He recalled that during the Pane l proceedings, the US representatives gave 
assurances, which were accepted by the Panel, that Section 211 would not apply to a new 
trademark after a former trademark, to whic h the Section might have applied, had been 
abandoned.  He further noted that the US Fede ral Courts had taken a contrary view and had WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 196  
 
 applied Section 211 to trademarks succeeding abandoned trademarks.  Given the uncertainty, 
it was imperative for any solution to this dis pute to specifically address the issue of the 
abandonment of trademarks.  Cuba urged the United States to bring its measures into 
conformity with the recommendations and rulings  of the DSB within the reasonable period of 
time that it had agreed with the EC. 
 
At the DSB meeting on 28 November 2002, the US  submitted a status report indicating that 
the US Congress would convene early 2003 and th at the US Administration would continue 
to engage the US Congress with a view to finding a solution to this dispute.  The EC noted that the US status report was too brief and did not shed light on the steps being taken by the 
US to bring its measures into conformity with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.  
The EC urged the US to stand by the affirmations it expressly made during the Panel proceedings and which were relied upon by the Panel.  It was necessary for it to be clarified that Section 211 did not apply to a new trademar k after a former trademark, to which Section 
211 might have applied, had been abandoned.  C uba urged the US to bring its measures into 
conformity with the recommendations and rulings  of the DSB within the reasonable period of 
time that it had agreed with the EC.   
  On 20 December 2002, the EC and the US informed the DSB that they had mutually agreed 
to modify the reasonable period of time for the US to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB, so as to expire on 30 June 2003.  At the DSB meeting on 27 January 
2003, the US submitted its status report and indicated that US Administration was intent on 
working with the new Congress in order to find a solution to this dispute.  The EC indicated that, given the extension of the reasonable pe riod, it expected that the US Administration 
would work diligently with the new Congress to bring its measures into conformity by the 
new deadline.  Cuba strongly urged the US to  implement the recommendations and rulings of 
the DSB within the reasonable period of time that it had agreed with the EC. 
  On 30 June 2003, the EC and the US informed the DSB that they had mutually agreed to 
modify the reasonable period of time for the US to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB, so as to expire on 31 December 2003. 
 
At the DSB meeting on 2 October 2003, the US presented its status report noting that there is 
a bill pending in the US House of Representativ es that would, among others, repeal Section 
211. The US administration would continue to work with the US Congr ess with respect to 
appropriate statutory measures that would reso lve this dispute.  The EC welcomed the 
introduction of a bill in June 2003 in the US Congress that would, inter alia , repeal Section 
211. The EC hoped that this repeal, which was pa rt of a whole scheme of measures to ensure 
adequate protection of intellectual property rights , would offer a solution to this dispute to the 
benefit of all.   At the DSB meeting on 7 November 2003, the US said that the US administration would continue to work closely with the US Congr ess on appropriate statutory measures to resolve 
this dispute.  The EC welcomed the introducti on of the bill in the US Congress in June 2003. 
Cuba expressed concern about the lack of implem entation by the US and urged it to promptly 
bring its measures into conformity with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB as soon 
as possible.  
At the DSB meeting on 1 December 2003, the US re peated its previous status report.  The EC 
noted that the deadline for implementation in this case would expire by the end of December 
2003.  Cuba reiterated it concern.     WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 197 
 
 
 On 19 December 2003, the EC and the US informed  the DSB that they had mutually agreed to 
modify the reasonable period of time for impl ementation of the DSB recommendations and 
rulings so as to expire on 31 December 2004. On 17 December 2004, the EC and the US informed the DSB that they had mutually agr eed to modify the reasonable period of time for 
implementation of the DSB recommendations and rulings so as to expire on 30 June 2005.  
 
43. WT/DS177 and WT/DS178 – United States – Sa feguard Measure on Imports of Fresh, 
Chilled or Frozen Lamb from New Zealand and Australia 
 Complaints by New Zealand and Australia.  At the DSB meeting of 20 June 2001, the US 
recalled that on 14 June 2001 it had submitted in writing to the DSB its intentions with 
respect to the implementation in this case and said that it intended to implement the DSB's 
recommendations in a manner that would respect its WTO obligations.  The US further stated 
that it would need a reasonable period of time for implementation and, for that reason, it 
would enter into discussions with the complain ing parties.  On 27 September 2001, the US 
informed the DSB of its decision to implem ent the recommendations of the DSB by ending 
the safeguard measure effective on 15 Novemb er 2001.  On 28 Sept ember 2001, Australia 
and New Zealand agreed that the reasonable pe riod of time for implem entation would expire 
on 15 November 2001. 
 
44. WT/DS179 – United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Stainless Steel Plate in Coils 
and Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from Korea 
 Complaint by Korea  At the DSB meeting of 1 March 2001, the US stated its intention to 
implement the DSB's recommendations and indicated that it would need a reasonable period of time to do so. on 26 April 2001, the parties to the dispute notified the DSB that they had mutually agreed that the reasonable period of tim e shall be 7 months and shall thus expire on 
1 September 2001.   
 
 At the DSB's meeting of 10 September 2001, the US announced that it had implemented the 
DSB's recommendation on 1 September 2001.  At that meeting, Korea acknowledged the 
implementation. 
 
45. WT/DS184 – United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel 
Products from Japan 
 Complaint by Japan.  On 20 November 2001, Jap an requested that the reasonable period of 
time for implementation of the DSB's recommendati ons be determined by binding arbitration 
under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU.  Pending the appointment of the arbitrator, Japan and the US agreed to extend the time-period under that provision.  They agreed that the award of the 
arbitrator is to be made no later than 19 Februa ry 2002.  On 19 February 2002, the arbitrator 
circulated his award.  The arbitrator concluded that the reasonable period of time for implementation by the United States of the DSB's recommendations was 15 months from 23 August 2001.  Accordingly, this pe riod will expire on  23 November 2002. 
  At the DSB meeting on 1 October 2002, the US  presented its status report regarding the 
implementation of the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.  The US stated that the US 
Administration had started taking steps to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.  To that end, the US Department of Commerce had published a proposed change to 
its "arm's length" test with a view to comply ing with the recommendations and rulings of the 
DSB. The US would apply this test to the hot-s teel products which were the subject matter of 
the dispute.  The US confirmed that this test would be applied in future anti-dumping 
proceedings initiated by the US.  Regarding the st atutory aspects of this dispute, the US stated WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 198  
 
 that the Administration was consulting with Congress with a view to determining which 
measures might be required to achieve a solution to the dispute.   
  Japan expressed its concerns that the US might  not be able to fulfil its obligations by the 
expiry of the reasonable period of time.  It stat ed that while the status report submitted by the 
US indicated that the DOC and Congress were taking steps to comply with the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB, the re port did not disclose anything in relation to 
the International Trade Commission, whose app lication of the relevant US law was found to 
be inconsistent with the US obligations under the WTO.  Japan urged the US to bring its 
measures into compliance with the recommendations  and rulings of the DSB and stated that 
Japan would monitor all aspects of US impl ementation of the DSB recommendations and 
rulings.  The EC urged the US to implement pr omptly the recommendations and rulings of the 
DSB.  
 
At the DSB meeting on 11 November 2002, the US  submitted a status report stating that the 
US Department of Commerce had published a proposed  change to its "arm's length" test with 
a view to complying with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.  He said that the US 
would apply this test to the hot-steel products wh ich were the subject matter of this dispute.  
The US confirmed that this test would be app lied in future anti-dumping proceedings initiated 
by the US.  Regarding the statutory aspects of this dispute, he said that the Administration was working with Congress with a view to finding a solution to this dispute.  Japan stated that 
the reasonable period of time for the implemen tation of the recommendations and rulings of 
the DSB would expire on 23 November 2002 and Japan was concerned that the United States 
might not be able to fulfil its obligations by th at time.  He said that while the status report 
submitted by the US indicated that the Depa rtment of Commerce and Congress were taking 
steps to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB, it did not disclose 
anything in relation to the International Trade Commission, whose application of the relevant 
US law was found to be inconsistent with th e obligations of the United States under the WTO 
Agreement.  He urged the US to brin g its measures into compliance with the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB, and said that Japan would be entitled after the expiration of the reasonable period of time to request authorization to suspend concessions or 
other obligations pursuant to Article 22.2 of the DSU. 
 
 On 22 November 2002, the US requested the DSB to modify the reasonable period of time.  
The US proposed that the reasonable period of  time be modified so as to expire on 31 
December 2003, or on the date on which the fi rst session of the next US Congress adjourns, 
whichever was earlier.  The US believed that such an extension of time would promote a 
principal aim of the dispute settlement system, which is to provide mutually satisfactory 
solutions to disputes.   
  At the DSB meeting of 28 November 2002, the US stated that the DOC had issued a new final 
determination in the hot-rolled steel anti-dumpi ng duty investigation, which implemented the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB with respect to the calculation of anti-dumping 
margins in that investigation. Regarding th e recommendations and rulings of the DSB with 
respect to the US anti-dumping statute, the US stated that the US Administration was 
continuing to consult and to work with the US Congress with a view to resolving this dispute 
in a mutually satisfactory manner.  To that end, the US was consulting with Japan and had 
sought its agreement to extend the reasonable peri od of time in this case to 31 December 2003 
or the end of the first session of the next Congress, whichever is earlier.  Japan expressed 
disappointment about the failure of the US to  implement the recommendations and rulings of 
the DSB within the reasonable period of time, and said that the lack of implementation compromised the credibility of the dispute settleme nt mechanism.  Japan further stated that 
whilst it would probably agree to an extension of the reasonable period of time, it expected  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 199 
 
 
 the US to bring its measures into compliance as soon as practicable.  Japan also reserved its 
right to take appropriate action in the event of non-compliance again by the US. 
 
At its meeting on 5 December 2002, the DSB agreed  to the request by the US for an extension 
of the reasonable period of time for the impl ementation of the reco mmendations and rulings 
of the DSB in this dispute.  At the DSB meeting on 27 January 2003, the US submitted a 
status report where it recalled his earlier stat ement concerning the issuance of a new final 
determination in the hot-rolled steel antidumpi ng duty investigation by the Department of 
Commerce which, according to the US, implemen ted the recommendations and rulings of the 
DSB with respect to the calculation of anti-dumpi ng margins in that investigation.  Regarding 
the recommendations and rulings of the DSB with respect to the US anti-dumping statute, the 
US said that its Administration would work with the new Congress with a view to finding a satisfactory solution to the dispute.  Japan e xpressed disappointment about the failure of the 
US to implement the recommendations and ruli ngs of the DSB within the reasonable period 
of time, and said that the lack of implementation compromised the credibility of the dispute 
settlement mechanism.  Japan urged the US Admi nistration to intensify its efforts and work 
with the new Congress to implement as prom ptly as possible the recommendations and 
rulings of the DSB. 
 
 At its meeting on 2 October 2003, the US presen ted its status report and stated that with 
respect to the DSB's recommendations and rulings on the US anti-dumping statute, the US 
administration would continue to consult and to  work with Congress with a view to resolving 
this matter.  In this regard, the US stated  that the US administration was supporting the 
passage of specific amendments to the US anti- dumping duty law that would implement these 
recommendations and rulings. Japan noted that th e US status report and its statement did not 
contain a concrete explanation of its plan for implementation.  Japan urged the United States 
to implement the DSB's recommendations before  the end of the first session of the 108
th 
Congress and to consult with Japan in an ur gent and detailed manne r on how and when it 
intended to implement the recommendations.     At the DSB meeting on 7 November 2003, the US  stated that with respect to the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings on the US anti-dumping statute, the US administration was 
supporting the passage of specific amendments to  the US anti-dumping duty law in order to 
bring it into conformity with the DSB's r ecommendations and rulings. Japan said that the 
extended reasonable period of time for the implementation of the DSB's recommendations 
and rulings agreed to by the parties was about  to expire, yet the necessary statutory changes 
had not been introduced in the US Congress whic h was about to go on recess very soon. Japan 
also suggested that it would be helpful if the US consulted Japan on how it intended to 
implement the recommendations. On 21 November, 2003, the US notified the Chairman of the DSB that it proposed that the reasonable period of time for implementation of the recommendations and rulings of the DSB be modifi ed so as to expire on 31 July 2004, and 
that it was consulting with Japan regarding th is proposal.  At its meeting on 10 December 
2003, the DSB agreed to the request by the US for an extension of the reasonable period of 
time for the implementation of the recommendati ons and rulings of the DSB. On 30 July 
2004, the US notified the Chairman of the DSB th at it proposed that the reasonable period of 
time for implementation of the recommendations an d rulings of the DSB be modified so as to 
expire on 31 July 2005, and that it had consulte d with Japan regarding this proposal. At its 
meeting on 31 August 2003, the DSB agreed to the request by the US for an extension of the 
reasonable period of time for the implementati on of the recommendations and rulings of the 
DSB. 
 WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 200  
 
 46. WT/DS189 – Argentina – Definitive Anti-Dum ping Measures on Imports of Ceramic 
Floor Tiles from Italy 
 Complaint by the European Communities.  On 20 December 2001, the EC and Argentina 
informed the DSB that they have mutually agr eed a reasonable period of time of 5 months to 
implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB, i.e. from 5 November 2001 until 5 
April 2002. 
  At the DSB meeting of 22 May 2002, Argentina announced that on 24 April 2002, the 
Ministry of Production had enacted Resoluti on 76/02 revoking the anti-dumping measures at 
issue in this case.  With the publication of this  Resolution, Argentina considered that it had 
now fully implemented the DSB's recommendations  and rulings in this dispute.  The EC 
welcomed Argentina's prompt implementation in this case. 
 
47. WT/DS192 – United States – Transitional Sa feguard Measure on Combed Cotton Yarn 
from Pakistan 
 Complaint by Pakistan.  At the DSB meeting of  21 November 2001, the US declared that on 8 
November 2001 the Committee for the Implementati on of Textile Agreement had directed the 
US Customs Services to eliminate the limit on im ports of combed cotton yarn from Pakistan.  
The US indicated that, through this action, effective from 9 November 2001, it had implemented the DSB's recommendations 
 48. WT/DS202 – United States – Definitive Sa feguard Measures on Imports of Circular 
Welded Carbon Quality Line Pipe 
 Complaint by Korea.  At the DSB meeting on 5 April 2002, the US expressed its intention to 
implement the DSB's recommendations and indicat ed that it would enter into consultations 
with Korea to determine a reasonable period of time for implementation.  At the DSB meeting 
on 17 April 2002, Korea expressed concern about the lack of any proposal from the US 
regarding a reasonable period of time for complia nce.  The US stated that they would be 
proposing a reasonable period of time as soon as possible.  On 29 April 2002, Korea 
requested the DSB that the "reasonable period of time" be determined by binding arbitration 
pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU.  On 13 May 2002, Korea requested the Director-General to appoint an arbitrator.  On 23 May 2002, the Director-General appointed an 
arbitrator.  The issuance of the award was sche duled for 12 July 2002.  By joint letter of 
12 July 2002, the parties requested the Arbitrat or to delay the issuance of the award until 22 
July 2002 in order to allow time for additional bilateral negotiations betw een the parties.  The 
arbitrator acceded to the request. Additional jo int requests for delay were received on 19 and 
22 July 2002, wherein the parties requested that the award, pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the 
DSU, be delayed until 24 July 2002 and 26 July 2002, respectively.  The Arbitrator agreed 
also to these additional requests.  By letters  dated 24 July 2002, the parties informed the 
Arbitrator that they had reached agreement on the reasonable period of time for compliance in this matter.  Accordingly, the Arbitrator did not issue his award and, instead, issued a Report 
setting out the procedural history of this arbitration. 
 
 At the DSB meeting on 18 March 2003, the  US informed that its safeguard measure on line 
pipe from Korea had been terminated on 1 March 2003. 
 
49. WT/DS204 – Mexico – Measures Affecting Telecommunications Services 
Complaint by the United States.  On 1 June 20 04, Mexico and the United Stated reached an 
agreement on the former's compliance with th e recommendations of the panel report.  The  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 201 
 
 
 agreement states that a reasonable period of tim e to comply with the recommendations of the 
Report is 13 months.  
 
50. WT/DS206 – United States – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Measures on Steel Plate 
From India 
 Complaint by India.  On 1 October 2002 the United States and India informed the DSB that 
pursuant to Article 21.3(b) of the DSU they have  mutually agreed that the reasonable period 
of time to implement the DSB recommendations and rulings in this dispute shall be five 
months, i.e., form 29 July 2002 to 29 December  2002.  On 17 January 2003, the parties 
informed the DSB that they had mutually agr eed to modify the reasonable period of time for 
implementation so as to expire on 31 January 2003. 
 On 14 February 2003, the parties informed the DSB that they had agreed on certain 
procedures under Article 21 and 22 of the DSU.  Pu rsuant to these agreed procedures, if India 
requests the establishment of a 21.5 compliance pa nel, the US will not oppose it.  India agrees 
not to request the authorisation to suspend concessions under Article 22 until the adoption of 
the compliance reports (Panel and AB, if any) and the US agrees not to assert that India is 
precluded from doing so given that the request w ould be made outside the 30 day period.   
 
51. WT/DS207 – Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard Measures relating to Certain 
Agricultural Products 
Complaint by Argentina.  At the DSB meeting of 11 November 2002, Chile stated that it 
intended to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.  To that end, Chile was engaged in consultations with Argentina to  find a mutually satisfactory solution to the 
dispute.  Chile further stated that it would need a reasonable period of time to bring its measures into conformity with the recommendati ons and rulings of the DSB.  On 6 December 
2002, Chile informed the DSB, that to date Ch ile and Argentina had been unable to agree on 
the length of the reasonable period of time  and thus Chile was requesting that the 
determination of the reasonable period of tim e be the subject of binding arbitration in 
accordance with Article 21.3(c) of the DSU.  On 16 December 2002, Argentina and Chile 
informed the DSB that they have agreed to postpone the deadline for the binding arbitration 
which would now be completed no later than 90 days from the appointment of the arbitrator 
(instead of 90 days from the date of adoptio n of the rulings and recommendations of the 
DSB).  Also on 16 December 2002, Argentina and Chile requested Mr. John Lockhart, Member of the Appellate Body, to act as arbitrator for the purposes of Article 21.3(c) of the DSU.  On 17 December 2002, Mr. John Lockhart accepted the appointment of arbitrator.   
 
On 17 March 2003, the arbitrator circulated its award.  The Arbitrator concluded that the 
"reasonable period of time" that should be  extended to Chile to implement the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB in th is dispute was 14 months (23 December 2003). 
 
At the DSB meeting on 2 October 2003, Chile stated that on 25 September 2003 Law No 19.897 to establish a new price band system ha d been promulgated replacing Law No 18.525. 
The new Law would come into force on 16 December 2003: i.e. prior to the expiry of the 
reasonable period of time for compliance. Argen tina raised detailed questions concerning the 
new Law. Chile noted the statement by Argen tina and requested that Argentina make its 
questions available in writing.  
At the DSB meeting on 7 November 2003, Chile stated that Law No 19.897 was scheduled to 
come into force on 16 December 2003: i.e. prior to the expiry of the reasonable period of time for compliance, and that, with this new law, Chile had complied with the DSB's WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 202  
 
 recommendations and rulings. Argentina stated that the new system did not comply fully with 
the recommendations and rulings of the DSB, as it retained most of the essential features of 
the previous system; and it was still waiting for the responses to its questions concerning the 
new price band system. Argentina also stated that, given the close relationship between the Chile and Argentina, it was still willing to explore the possibility of reaching a mutually 
satisfactory solution to this dispute. 
 At the DSB meeting on 1 December 2003, Chile said that it had already adopted a number of 
measures to comply with the DSB's recommendations, as stated previously. Argentina reiterated its view that the measures taken by Chile to comply with the recommendations did 
not constitute the implementation in this case sinc e the price band system would continue to 
be maintained.  Argentina considered that it woul d be appropriate for the parties to enter into 
negotiations on compensation before the expiry  of the deadline for implementation. Brazil 
said that it also considered that the measures taken for compliance by Chile were still not 
consistent with the provisions of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
 
On 24 December 2003, Argentina and Chile in formed the DSB that they had agreed on 
certain procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU.     At the DSB meeting on 23 January 2004, Chile an d Argentina noted that they had concluded a 
bilateral agreement regarding the procedures unde r Articles 21.5 and 22 of the DSU. In this 
regard, Chile noted that the issue of seque ncing between Articles 21.5 and 22 required a 
multilateral solution since ad hoc agreements only applied to specific disputes. Argentina 
noted that the parties would shortly enter in to consultations regarding the implementation 
issues.   
On 19 May 2004, Argentina requested consultati ons with Chile under Article 21.5 of the DSU 
 
52. WT/DS211 – Egypt – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Steel Rebar from Turkey 
 Complaint by Turkey.  On 14 November 2002, Egypt and Turkey informed the Chairman of 
the Dispute Settlement Body, that they had mutu ally agreed that the reasonable period of time 
to implement the recommendations and rulings of  DSB should not be more than nine months, 
that is from 1 November 2002 until 31 July 2003. 
 
53. WT/DS212 – United States – Countervailin g Measures concerning Certain Products 
from the European Communities 
 Complaint by the European Communities.  At the DSB meeting on 27 January 2003, the US 
indicated that it intended to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in a 
manner that respected its WTO obligations and that, in that connection, it would need a 
reasonable period of time to implement them.  The EC urged the US to promptly bring its measures into conformity with the recommenda tions and rulings of the DSB.  The EC 
indicated that, since the principle underlying th e findings in this case had been established by 
the Appellate Body in an earlier case (US – Imposition of countervailing duties on lead and 
bismuth carbon steel from the UK),  and as such the US should by now know what it had to 
do to bring its measures into conformity with WTO disciplines, the reasonable period of time had to be short.  On 10 April 2003, the parties notified the DSB that they had agreed on a reasonable period of time for implementati on of 10 months (from 8 January 2003 to 8 
November 2003)  
 
At the DSB meeting on 7 November 2003, the US presented its first status report where it stated that on 23 June 2003, the US Depa rtment of Commerce (DOC) published a notice  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 203 
 
 
 announcing a modification of the manner in which the Department would analyze the 
question of whether a subsidized, government- owned company remained subsidized after it 
was "privatized";  the DOC had also issued fina l revised determinations for each of the twelve 
countervailing determinations th at were at issue on 24 October 2003; and as a result of these 
measures, the US considered that it had brought  its measures into full conformity with the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB.  The EC said that while the amending legislation 
was to be welcomed, as it established a presumpti on that a company would not be deemed to 
have benefited from prior subsidies, if the comp any had been privatized in an arm's length, 
fair market value transaction, certain elements of  the legislation gave rise to concern; it would 
appear that some of the factors which had to be taken into account by the DOC in its 
determination went beyond "governmental ec onomic and other policies". The EC further 
stated that while the EC was satisfied with th e results of the DOC's re-examination in eight 
out of the twelve privatization cases, it regretted the decision that an analysis of privatization 
was not necessary to implement the DSB rulings in  the other four cases, and that the EC was 
evaluating the reasons given for such an omi ssion and its consequences on the implementation 
process.  Mexico said that it, as a third-party, was in the process of analyzing whether the new 
US measure fully complied with the r ecommendations and rulings of the DSB. 
 At the DSB meeting on 1 December 2003, the EC  reiterated its concerns regarding some 
aspects of the US implementation of the DSB's rulings. In particular, the EC was concerned 
with the treatment of the four cases where the DO C had refused to examine the nature of the 
privatizations. He said that discussions were ongoing on this matter to explore the possibility 
for a mutually acceptable solution.  However, the EC reserved its right to initiate compliance 
proceedings.  The US said that it had complied with the DSB's recommendations in this case.  The US was disappointed to hear that the EC had some concerns regarding certain aspects of 
the revised determinations and was ready to di scuss with the EC possibl e approaches to these 
concerns.  Brazil said that its companies suffe red commercial damages as a result of the US 
methodology, which was WTO-inconsistent.   On 17 March 2004, the EC, considering that the measures taken by the US to comply with its 
WTO obligations were unsatisfactory, requested  the US to enter into consultations under 
Articles 4 and 21.5 of the DSU and Article 30 of the SCM Agreement. On 16 September 
2004, pursuant to Articles 6 and 21.5 of th e DSU, Article 30 of the SCM Agreement and 
Article XXIII of GATT 1994, the EC requested th at the panel be established, as it disagrees 
with the US as to the existence or consistency with a covered agreement of measures taken to 
comply with the recommendations and rulings of  the DSB. At its meeting of 27 September 
2004, the DSB established the panel. Brazil, Ko rea and China reserved their rights as third 
parties. On 8 October 2004, the Panel was composed.      
 
54. WT/DS213 – United States – Countervailing Duties on Certain Corrosion-Resistant 
Carbon Steel Flat Products from Germany 
At the DSB meeting on 20 April 2004, the United States 
informed that the US had fully 
implemented the DSB's recommendations and rulings on 1 April 2004 by revoking the 
countervailing duty order on corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Germany. 
 
55. WT/DS217, WT/DS234 – United States – Cont inued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 
2000 
Joint complaint by Australia, Brazil, Chile, Eur opean Communities, India, Indonesia, Japan, 
Korea and Thailand (WT/DS217), and Canada  and Mexico (WT/DS234).  On 14 March 
2003, the complainants requested arbitration unde r Article 21.3(c) of the DSU to determine 
the reasonable period of time for implementation by the US of the DSB recommendations.  WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 204  
 
 On 24 March 2003, the complainants requested th e Director-General to appoint the arbitrator 
in consultation with the parties pursuant to footnote 12 of the DSU.  On 4 April 2003, the Director-General appointed an Arbitrator.  On 13 June 2003, the Arbitrator issued its award to 
the parties.  The Arbitrator concluded that the "reasonable period of time" for the United States to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings should be 11 months from the 
date of the DSB's adoption of the Panel and A ppellate Body Reports in this dispute.  The 
reasonable period of time will therefore expire on 27 December 2003
. 
 On 14 January 2004, the DSB was informed that  the United States had mutually agreed to 
modify the reasonable period of time with Thaila nd, Australia and Indonesia, respectively, so 
as to expire on 27 December 2004.  On 15 January 2004, on the grounds that the US had 
failed to implement the DSB recommendations and rulings within the reasonable period of time, Brazil, Chile, the EC, India, Japan, Ko rea, Canada and Mexico requested the DSB 
authorization to suspend concessi ons pursuant to Article 22.2 of the DSU.  On 23 January 
2004, the US requested, in accordance with Arti cle 22.6 of the DSU, that the matter be 
referred to arbitration, since the US objected  to the level of suspension of concessions 
proposed by the foregoing parties.  At its meeting on 26 January 2004, the DSB decided to refer the matter to arbitration.    
On 31 August 2004, the arbitrator circulated  its decisions.  The arbitrator determined: 
 
• It rejects the position of Brazil, Canada, Chile, the European Communities, India, 
Japan, Korea and Mexico that the level of suspension of concessions or other obligations should be equivalent to the disbursements made by the United States 
under the the measure at issue, i.e., CDSOA.  The Arbitrator considered that this 
interpretation was not supported by the te rms of Article XXIII of GATT 1994 or the 
DSU.  The Arbitrator found it appropriate to rely on the economic effect of the 
measure, as was done in previous Article 22.6 arbitrations.  
 
• The Arbitrator applied an economic m odel aimed at assessing the effect of 
disbursements under the CDSOA on exports of the above-mentioned Members to the 
United States, and thus came up with a co efficient which, multiplied by the amounts 
disbursed by the United States under the CDSOA in relation to anti-dumping or 
countervailing duties collected on imports from each of the those Members, gives an 
assessment of the economic effect of th e CDSOA on exports from each of those 
Members for a given period. 
 
• The Arbitrators' decisions do not provide for an actual, single value of trade not to be 
exceeded by the above-mentioned Members when suspending concessions or other 
obligations vis-à-vis  the United States. The awards allow those Members to suspend 
concessions or other obligations up to a ma ximum value of trade to be calculated by 
multiplying the published amount of disbursements under the CDSOA for a given year by the coefficient calculated by the Arbitrator.   
 On 10 November 2004, Brazil, the European Co mmunities, India, Japan, Korea, Canada and 
Mexico requested authorization to suspend c oncessions or other obligations under Article 
22.7 of the DSU. At its meeting of 26 Novemb er 2004, the DSB authorized the suspension of 
concessions. On 6 December 2004, Chile request ed authorization to suspend concessions or 
other obligations under Article 22.7 of the DS U. At is meeting of 17 December 2004, the 
DSB authorized the suspension of concessions.    WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 205 
 
 
 On 23 December 2004, 7 and 11 January 2005,  Australia, Thailand and Indonesia, 
respectively, reached Understanding with the United States with respect to this dispute. At its 
meeting of 25 January 2005, the DSB agr eed to take note of these Understandings.  
 
56. WT/DS219 – European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Malleable Cast Iron 
Tube or Pipe Fittings from Brazil 
Complaint by Brazil.  On 18 August 2003 the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the 
Panel report as modified by the Appellate Body Report.  On 15 September 2003, the European Communities confirmed in a communicat ion to the DSB its intention to implement 
the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.  
 
On 1 October 2003, the EC and Brazil informed that DSB that they had agreed that the 
reasonable period of time for the EC to impl ement the DSB's recommendations and rulings 
would be 7 months; i.e. until 19 March 2004.  
 
On 17 March 2004, the EC informed the DSB that  it had reassessed its findings related to the 
contested measure by taking fully into account the findings and conclusions set out in the 
Panel and Appellate Body Reports, as explai ned in the Council Regulation (EC) No 436/2004 
of 8 March 2004, and thus had fully complied with the DSB rulings and recommendations in 
this dispute and within the d eadline agreed upon between the disputing parties. At the DSB 
meeting on 20 April 2004, Brazil
 contested the claim by the EC that it had fully implemented 
the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this case.  Brazil stated that whereas it was 
true that the EC had recalculated the dumping margin without using the "zeroing" methodology, it had not fully implemented the fi ndings of the Appellate Body relating to the 
due process requirements contained in the Anti-dumping Agreement. The EC
 disputed this 
claim by Brazil and stated that the EC was read y to provide further explanations to Brazil if 
that would be helpful and make it accept that it had correctly implemented the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB.     
 
57. WT/DS222 – Canada – Export Credits a nd Loan Guarantees for Regional Aircraft 
 Complaint by Brazil.  At the DSB meeti ng on 8 March 2002, Canada stated that it was 
considering its options on how best to impl ement the recommendations and rulings of the 
DSB. 
 
On 23 May 2002, on the grounds that Canada had failed to implement the recommendations 
of the DSB within the 90-day time-period grante d by the DSB, Brazil requested authorization 
to suspend concessions pursuant to Article 22. 2 of the DSU.  Brazil proposed that the 
suspension of concessions takes the form of some or all of the following countermeasures:    
 
• suspension of its obligations under para graph 6(a) of Article VI of GATT 1994to 
determine the effect of subsidization un der EDC Canada Account  and EDC Corporate 
Account programmes; 
• suspension of application of obligatio ns under the Agreement on Import licencing 
procedures relating to licensing requi rement on imports from Canada; and 
• suspension of tariff concessions and related obligations under GATT 1994 
concerning those products in the list attached to Brazil's communication of 23 May 
2002. 
 At the DSB meeting on 3 June 2002, Brazil and Canada informed the DSB that they had 
reached an agreement in this matter.  Under the terms of the agreement, the parties agreed that WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 206  
 
 it would in no way prejudice the right of Brazil to request authorization to take appropriate 
countermeasures under Article 4.10 of the SCM Ag reement and Article 22.2 of the DSU, nor 
affect the relevant time periods under the DSU.    
At the DSB meeting on 24 June 2002, Brazil stat ed that it was requesting authorization to 
suspend concessions for an amount of US$3.36 b illion towards Canada as the latter had failed 
to withdraw its prohibited export subsidies w ithin the time-frame speci fied by the Panel. 
Canada disputed Brazil's right to request aut horization from the DSB to  suspend concessions.  
It argued that Brazil had not fulfilled the conditi ons spelt out in Article 22.2 of the DSU and 
as such it could not avail itself of Article 22.6 of the DSU.  Canada also objected to the 
countermeasures proposed by Brazil.  The DSB re ferred the matter to arbitration according to 
Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement.  On 17 February 2003, the arbitrator circulated its  award.  The arbitrator determined that the 
suspension of concessions by Brazil covering trade in a total amount of US$247,797,000 
would constitute appropriate countermeasures with in the meaning of Article 4.10 of the SCM 
Agreement.  On 6 March 2003, Brazil requested authorization to suspend concessions or other 
obligations under Article 22.7 of the DSU and Article 4.10 of the SCM Agreement.  At its 
meeting on 18 March 2003, the DSB aut horized the suspension of concessions. 
 
58. WT/DS231 – European Communities – Trade Description of Sardines 
Complaint by Peru.  At the DSB meeting of 11 November 2002, the EC stated that it was 
working towards implementing the rulings a nd recommendations of the DSB in a manner 
consistent with its obligations under WTO ru les, in particular, Article 2.4 of the TBT 
Agreement.  However, the EC stated that in orde r to be able to achieve this it would need a 
reasonable period in which to bring its measures into conformity with its obligations under the 
TBT Agreement, especially given that implementation would entail the repeal of a statutory 
measure.  To that end, the EC was willing to co nsult with Peru, pursuant  to Article 21.3 of the 
DSU, in order to achieve agreement on the reasonable period of time needed for implementation of the DSB's rulings and recommendations.  On 19 December 2002, Peru and the EC informed  the DSB that they had agreed that the 
reasonable period of time for the EC to implement the recommendations and rulings of the 
DSB, will expire on 23 April 2003.  On 14 Apri l 2003, the parties inform ed the DSB that they 
had reached an agreement to extend the r easonable period of time until 1 July 2003. 
 
59. WT/DS236 – United States – Preliminary Determinations with respect to Certain 
Softwood Lumber from Canada 
 Complaint by Canada.  At the DSB meeting of 28 November 2002, the US said that the 
measures at issue in this dispute were no longer in effect and that the provisional cash deposits that Canada challenge d had been refunded prior to the circulation of the Panel 
Report.  As such, it was not necessary for the US to take any further action to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.  Cana da dismissed the US view that no action was 
required on its part to implement the recomme ndations and rulings of  the DSB.  Canada 
stated that the legal methodologies found by the Panel to be plainly illegal in the US Preliminary Countervailing Duty Determin ation remained unchanged in the Final 
Determination.   
  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 207 
 
 
 60. WT/DS238 – Argentina – Definitive Safe guard Measure on Imports of Preserved 
Peaches 
Complaint by Chile.  At its meeting on 15 April 2003, the DSB adopted the Panel Report.  On 
14 May 2003, Argentina informed the DSB that it could not comply with its recommendations immediately and thus asked for a reasonable period of time for 
implementation.  On 27 June 2003, Argentina and Chile informed the DSB that they had 
agreed that the reasonable period of time will be 31 December 2003.  At its meeting on 23 January 2004, Argentina a nnounced that the safeguard measure at issue 
had been withdrawn on 31 December 2003 in line with the agreement reached between 
Argentina and Chile and thus in its view it had implemented the DSB's recommendations. 
Chile welcomed the withdrawal of the measure by Argentina.    
61. WT/DS245 – Japan – Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples 
 Complaint by the United States.  At the DSB meeting on 9 January 2004, Japan indicated that 
it intended to comply with the recommendations  and rulings of the DSB in a manner that 
respected its WTO obligations under the SPS Agre ement.  In that connection, Japan also 
stated that it would need a reasonable period of time to implement the said recommendations and rulings and was willing to discuss this matt er with the United St ates in accordance with 
Article 21.3(b) of the DSU. On 10 February 2004, Japan and the United States informed the 
DSB that they had agreed that the reasonable period of time shall be six months and 20 days, 
that is from 10 December 2003 to 30 June 2004. 
 
On 30 June 2004, Japan and the United States sent to the DSB the confirmed procedures 
between the parties under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU.  
 
Considering that Japan had failed to impl ement the DSB's recommendations and rulings 
before the expiration of the reasonable period of time, on 19 July 2004 the United States requested the DSB of both the establishment of a panel under Article 21.5 of the DSU and authorization to suspend concessions or other obl igations with respect to Japan under Article 
22.2 of the DSU. In respect of the latter, on 29 July 2004 Japan requested this matter to be 
referred to arbitration in accordance with Article 22.6 of the DSU and the foregoing 
confirmed procedures. After the matter was referred to arbitra tion (which would be carried 
out by the original panel) at the meeting of the DSB on 30 July 2004, both parties jointly requested the Arbitrator to suspend the arbitration proceeding on 4 August 2004 until 
adoption by the DSB of its recommendations and rulings of the former proceeding, i.e., the 
panel proceeding under Article 21.5 of the DSU.   
 
In respect of the panel proceeding under Article 21.5 of the DSU, at its meeting on 30 July 
2004 the DSB decided to refer the matter raised by the United States to the original panel. 
Australia, Brazil, China, the European Co mmunities, New Zealand and Chinese Taipei 
reserved their third party rights.           
 
 On 29 October 2004, the Panel under DSU Article 21.5 informed the DSB that due in 
particular to the need to consult scientific e xperts the Panel was not able to issue its report 
within 90 days, and that the Panel expected to  circulate its final report to Members during the 
second half of the month of May 2005. 
 WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 208  
 
 62. WT/DS246 – European Communities – Conditions for the Granting of Tariff 
Preferences to Developing Countries 
Complaint by India. At the DSB meeting on 19 May 2004, the European Communities 
reaffirmed its intention to fully comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in a 
manner that respected its WTO obligations, and that it would need a reasonable period of time 
to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB and was willing to discuss this 
matter with India in accordance with Article 21. 3(b) of the DSU. On  16 July 2004, India 
requested that the reasonable period of time be determined through binding arbitration 
pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU due to the failure of agreement with the European 
Communities on this matter. On 4 August 2004, pursuant to the request by India of 26 July 
2004, the Director-General appointed an arbitrat or for the foregoing arbitration under Article 
21.3(c) of the DSU. On 20 September 2004, the Arbitrator decided that the reasonable period of time for implementation woul d expire on 1 July 2005.     
 
63. WT/DS248, WT/DS249, WT/DS251, WT/D S252, WT/DS253, WT/DS254, WT/DS258 
and WT/DS259 – United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain 
Steel Products 
Complaints by the European Communities (WT/DS248), Japan (WT/DS249), Korea 
(WT/DS251), China (WT/DS252), Switzerland (WT/DS253), Norway (WT/DS254), New Zealand (WT/DS258) and Brazil (WT/DS259). At  the DSB meeting of 10 December 2003, 
the US informed Members that, on 4 December  2003, the President of the United States had 
issued a proclamation that terminated all of th e safeguard measures subject to this dispute, 
pursuant to section 204 of the US Trade Act of 1974.  
64. WT/DS257 – United States – Final Countervailing Duty Determination with respect to 
Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada 
Complaint by Canada. On 5 March 2004, the Unite d States informed by letter that it intended 
to comply with the recommendations and rulings  of the DSB in a matter that respects its 
WTO obligations. In that connection, the Unite d States also stated that it would need a 
reasonable period of time to implement the sai d recommendations and rulings and stood ready 
to discuss this matter with Canada in accordance with Article 21.3(b) of the DSU. At the DSB 
meeting on 19 March 2004, the United States stat ed likewise. On 28 April 2004, Canada and 
the United States informed the DSB that they ha d agreed that the reasonable period of time 
shall be ten months, that is from 17 February 2004 to 17 December 2004. 
 On 10 November 2004, the United States submitted its first status report to the DSB pursuant 
to the DSU 21.6, which explained that the US  Department of Commerce had been collecting 
and analysing information relevant to the r ecommendations and rulings of the DSB in its 
countervailing duty investigation of softwood lumber products fro m Canada, and, on the basis 
of that information, intended to issue a determin ation in that investigation in the near future.  
 At the DSB meeting of 17 December 2004, th e United States informed the DSB that it had 
complied with its rulings and recommendations. 
 
Considering that the measures allegedly taken by  the United States to comply with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings were  inconsistent with US ob ligations under relevant WTO 
Agreements, on 30 December 2004 Canada requ ested the DSB of both the establishment of a 
panel under Article 21.5 of the DSU and aut horization to suspend concessions or other 
obligations with respect to the United States under Article 22.2 of the DSU.  
  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 209 
 
 
 On 14 January 2005, Canada and the United States sent to the DSB the understanding 
between the parties regarding procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU, which 
provides that Article 22.6 arbitration be suspended until adoption by the DSB of the 
recommendations and rulings in the Arti cle 21.5 compliance proceedings.     
 
In respect of the the Article 22 proceeding,, on  13 January 2005 the United States requested 
this matter to be referred to arbitration in accordance with Article 22.6 of the DSU. At its 
meeting of 14 January 2005, the DSB agreed that  the matter raised by the United States was 
referred to arbitration in accordance with Article  22.6 of the DSU. In respect of the Artcile 
21.5 proceeding, at its meeting of 14 January 2 005 the DSB decided to refer the matter raised 
by Canada to the original panel. China and the European Communities reserved their third 
party rights.  
 On 7 February 2005, the parties agreed on the panelists (in respect of the Article 21.5 
proceeding) and arbitrators (in respect of the Article 22.6 proceeding). Pursuant to the joint 
request by the parties on 15 February 2005,  the Article 22.6 arbitration proceeding was 
suspended. 
 
65. WT/DS264 – United States – Final Dumping Determination on Softwood Lumber from 
Canada 
Complaint by Canada. At the DSB meeting on 27 September 2004, the United States stated 
that it was the intention of the US  to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB 
in a manner that respected its WTO obligations, and that it would require a reasonable period 
of time to implement the recommendations and ru lings of the DSB and was ready to consult 
with Canada in accordance with Article 21.3(b) of the DSU. 
 
As Canada and the United States had been unabl e to agree on a reasonable period of time, on 
18 October 2004 Canada requests that the reasona ble period of time be determined through 
binding arbitration pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU. On 1 November 2004, they agreed that Mr. Lockhart act as arbitrator under Artic le 21.3(c) of the DSU. On 4 November 2004, 
Mr. Lockhart informed that he accepted the appointment as arbitrator.   
On 6 December 2004, Canada and the United States informed the DSB that, pursuant to 
Article 21.3(b) of the DSU, both parties had mutually agreed that the reasonable period of time to implement the recommendations and ruli ngs of the Dispute Settlement Body in the 
above-referenced dispute shall be seven and one -half months, that is from 31 August 2004 to 
15 April 2005. In addition, they informed that, in light of the agreement, the proceeding under 
Article 21.3(c) of the DSU be terminated. On  13 December 2004, the Report of Arbitrator 
was circulated. On 14 February 2005, Canada  and the United States informed the DSB that 
both parties had agreed to modify the reasona ble period of time so as to expire on 
2 May 2005.  
66. WT/DS268 – United States – Sunset Reviews of  Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country 
Tubular Goods for Argentina 
Complaint by Argentina. At the DSB meeting on 14 January 2005, the United States stated 
that it was the intention of the US  to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in a manner that respected its WTO obligations, and that it would consult with Argentina to 
exploring the possibility of reaching an agre ement on the reasonable period of time to 
implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. On 11 March 2005, Argentina 
requested the DSB that the reasonable period of time be determined through binding arbitration pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, as Argentina and the United Stated were WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 210  
 
 not able to reach an agreement.  On 16  March 2005, Argentina and the United States 
informed the DSB that both parties had agreed the period of time for this binding arbitration 
shall be completed no later than 60 days after th e date of the appointment of the arbitrator, as 
the 90-day period under Artcile 21. 3 (c) was about to expire.  
 
67. WT/DS276 – Canada – Measures Relating to  Exports of Wheat and Treatment of 
Imported Grain  
Complaint by the United States. At the DSB meeting on 18 October 2004, Canada stated that 
it was the intention of Canada to implement th e recommendations and rulings of the DSB in a 
manner that respected its WTO obligations, and that it would require a reasonable period of 
time to implement the recommendations and ruli ngs of the DSB and was ready to consult 
with the United States in accordance with Article 21.3(b) of the DSU. 
 
 On 15 November 2004, Canada and the United Stat es informed the DSB that they had agreed 
that the reasonable period of time shall be is  10 months and 5 days, that is, 27 September 
2004 to 1 August 2005.  
 
68. WT/DS277 – United States – Investigation of the International Trade Commission in 
Softwood Lumber Canada 
Complaint by Canada. At the DSB meeting on 19 May 2004, the United States stated that it 
was the intention of the US  to implement th e recommendations and rulings of the DSB in a 
manner that respected its WTO obligations, and that it would require a reasonable period of 
time to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB and was ready to consult with  
Canada in accordance with Article 21.3(b) of the DSU. On 26 July 2004, both parties jointly informed the DSB that they were holding bilateral consultations  on the period of time 
required for the United States to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB and 
confirmed that should recourse to arbitration be sought, the award of the arbitrator made 
within the agreed 45-day time period shall be deem ed to be the award of the arbitrator for the 
purpose of Article 21.3(c) of the DSU. On 1 October 2004, both parties jointly informed the DSB that they had mutually agreed that th e reasonable period of time to implement the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB shall be 9 months, that is from 26 April 2004 to 
26 January 2005.   
 
At the DSB meeting on 25 January 2005, the Unite d States stated that it had implemented the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings by ame nding the US anti-dumping and counvervailing 
duty order concerned, and Canada stated it was reviewing the results of the US 
implementation.  
 
Considering that the measures allegedly taken by  the United States to comply with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings were  inconsistent with US ob ligations under relevant WTO 
Agreements, on 14 February 2004 Canada requested  the DSB of both the establishment of a 
panel under Article 21.5 of the DSU and aut horization to suspend concessions or other 
obligations with respect to the United States under Article 22.2 of the DSU.  
 
On 23 February 2005, Canada and the Unite d States sent to the DSB the understanding 
between the parties regarding procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU, which 
provides that Article 22.6 arbitration be suspended until adoption by the DSB of the 
recommendations and rulings in the Arti cle 21.5 compliance proceedings.     
 
In respect of the the Article 22 proceeding,, on 23 February 2005 the United States requested 
this matter to be referred to arbitration in acco rdance with Article 22.6 of the DSU.  At its  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 211 
 
 
 meeting of 25 January 2005, the DSB agreed th at the matter raised by the United States be 
referred to arbitration in accordance with Ar ticle 22.6 of the DSU.  In respect of the 
Article 21.5 proceeding, at its meeting of 25 February 2005 the DSB decided to refer the 
matter raised by Canada to the original panel.   Pursuant to the bilateral agreement, the 
Article 22.6 arbitration proceeding was suspe nded until the completion of the Article 21.5 
proceeding. On 2 March 2005. the Article 21.5 Panel was composed.  
 
VII. SETTLED OR INACTIVE CASES 
A. MUTUALLY  AGREED  SOLUTIONS  NOTIFIED  UNDER  ARTICLE  3.6 OF THE  DSU 
1. WT/DS5 – Korea – Measures Concerning the Shelf-life of Products 
 Complaint by the United  States.  On 3 May 1995, the US reque sted consultations with Korea in 
respect of requirements imposed by Korea on im ports from the US which had the effect of 
restricting imports.  The US alleged violations of  Articles III and XI of GATT, Articles 2 and 5 
of the SPS Agreement, Article 2 of the TBT Ag reement, and Article 4 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture.  The parties notifie d a mutually acceptable solution to this dispute on 31 July 1995. 
 
2. WT/DS6 – United States – Imposition of Import Duties on Automobiles from Japan 
under Sections 301 and 304 of the Trade Act of 1974 
 Complaint by Japan.  On 19 July 1995, the partie s notified settlement of this dispute.  Japan had 
alleged that the import surcharges violated GATT Articles I and II. 
 3. WT/DS7, WT/DS12 and WT/DS14 – European  Communities – Trade Description of 
Scallops 
 Complaints by Canada, Peru and Chile.  The complaint concerned a French Government Order 
laying down the official name and trade description of scallops. Co mplainants claimed that this 
Order will reduce competitiveness on the French ma rket as their product will no longer be able 
to be sold as "Coquille Saint-Jacques" although th ere is no difference between their scallops and 
French scallops in terms of colour, size, texture, appearance and use, i.e. it is claimed they are "like products".  Violations of GATT Articles I and III and TBT Articl e 2 were alleged.   
  A panel was established at the request of  Canada on 19 July 1995.  A joint panel was 
established on 11 October 1995 at the request of Peru and Chile on the sa me subject.  The two 
panels concluded their substantive work, but suspended the proceedings pursuant to 
Article 12.12 of the DSU in May 1996 in view of the consultations held among the parties 
concerned towards a mutually agreed solution.  The parties notified a mutually agreed solution 
to the DSB on 5 July 1996.  Brief panel reports  noting the settlement were circulated to 
Members on 5 August 1996 in accordance with the provisions of Arti cle 12.7 of the DSU.  
 4. WT/DS19 – Poland – Import Regime for Automobiles 
 Complaint by India.  This request for cons ultations, dated 28 September 1995, concerns 
Poland's preferential treatment of the EC in its tariff scheme on automobiles.  On 16 July 1996, 
both parties notified a mutually agreed solution to the DSB. 
 5. WT/DS20 – Korea – Measures Concerning Bottled Water 
 Complaint by Canada.  In this request for consultations dated 8 November 1995, Canada 
claimed that Korean regulations on the shelf-lif e and physical treatment (disinfection) of bottled WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 212  
 
 water were inconsistent with GATT Articles  III and XI, SPS Articles 2 and 5 and TBT 
Article 2.  At the DSB meeting on 24 April 1996, the parties to the dispute announced that they 
reached a settlement.  
 
6. WT/DS21 – Australia – Measures Affecting the Importation of Salmonids 
 Complaint by the United States.  This re quest for consultations, dated 17 November 1995, 
concerns the same regulation alleged to be in violation of the WTO Ag reements in WT/DS18, 
in respect of which the reports of the panel a nd Appellate Body have already been adopted and 
are awaiting implementation.  On 11 May 1999, th e United States requested the establishment 
of a panel.  At its meeting on 16 June 1999, th e DSB established a pane l.  Canada, the EC, 
Hong Kong/China, India and Norway reserved thei r third party rights. At the request of the 
complainants, the Panel agreed on 8 November 1999 to suspend its work , pursuant to Article 
12.12 of the DSU, until such time as the pane lists have completed their work in the ongoing 
proceeding requested by Canada pursuant to Arti cle 21.5 of the DSU (WT/DS18) or for eleven 
months, whichever is the earlier.  On 29 Marc h 2000, the panel agreed to a request by the US, 
pursuant to Article 12.12 of the DSU, to suspend its work for a period of one month, i.e. until 29 
April 2000.  On 12 May 2000, the panel agreed to a request by the US to suspend its work for 
an additional period of time, wh ich will expire on 17 July 2000. On 27 October 2000, the parties 
to the dispute notified a mutually satisfac tory solution on the matter to the DSB. 
 
7. WT/DS28 – Japan – Measures Concerning Sound Recordings 
 Complaint by the United States .  This request, dated 9 February  1996, is the first WTO dispute 
settlement case involving the TRIPS Agreement.   The United States claims that Japan's 
copyright regime for the protection of intellectual  property in sound recordings is inconsistent 
with, inter alia, the TRIPS Ag reement Article 14 (protection of performers, producers of 
phonograms and broadcasting organi zations).  On January 24 1997 , both parties informed the 
DSB that they had reached a mutually satisfactory solution to the dispute. 
 
8. WT/DS35 – Hungary – Export Subsidies in  Respect of Agricultural Products 
 Complaint by Argentina, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Thailand and the United States.  
This request, dated 27 March 1996, claims that Hungary viol ated the Agreement on Agriculture 
(Article 3.3 and Part V) by pr oviding export subsidies in respect of agricultural products not 
specified in its Schedule, as we ll as by providing agricultural export subsidies in excess of its 
commitment levels. On 9 January 1997, Argentin a, Australia, New Ze aland and the United 
States requested the es tablishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 25 February 1997 the DSB 
established a panel.  Canada, Japan, Thailand a nd Uruguay reserved their third-party rights to 
the dispute.  At the DSB meeting on 30 July 1997, Australia, on behalf of all the complainants, 
notified the DSB that the parties to the dispute had reached a mutually agreed solution, which 
required Hungary to seek a waiver of certain of its WTO obligations.  Pending adoption of the 
waiver, the complaint was not formally withdrawn.  
 
9. WT/DS36 – Pakistan – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical 
Products 
 Complaint by the United States.  In its request  for consultations dated 30 April 1996, the United 
States claimed that the absence in Pakistan of (i) either patent protec tion for pharmaceutical and 
agricultural chemical products or a system to permit the filing of applic ations for patents on 
these products and (ii) a system to grant exclus ive marketing rights in such products, violates 
TRIPS Agreement Articles 27, 65 and 70.   On 4 July 1996, the United States requested the 
establishment of a panel.  The DSB considered the request at its meeting on 16 July 1996, but  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 213 
 
 
 did not establish a panel due to Pakistan's objec tion.  At the DSB meeting on 25 February 1997, 
both parties informed the DSB that they had reac hed a mutually agreed solution to the dispute 
and that the terms of the agreement were bei ng drawn up, and would be communicated to the 
DSB once finalized.  On 28 February 1997, the terms of the agreement were communicated to 
the Secretariat.   
 10. WT/DS37 – Portugal – Patent Protect ion  under the Industrial Property Act 
 Complaint by the United States. This request fo r consultations dated 30 April 1996, concerned 
Portugal's term of patent prot ection under its Industrial Property Act.  The US claimed that the 
provisions in that Act with respect to existi ng patents were inconsis tent with Portugal's 
obligations under the TRIPS Agr eement. Violations under Articles  33, 65 and 70 were alleged. 
On 3 October 1996, both parties notified a mutually agreed solution to the DSB.  
 
11. WT/DS40 – Korea – Laws, Regulations and Practices in the Telecommunications Sector 
 Complaint by the European Communities.  Th is request for consultations, dated 9 May 1996, 
concerns  the laws, regulations and practices in the telecommunica tions sector.  The EC claims 
that the procurement practices of the Korean telecommunications sector  (Korea Telecom and 
Dacom) discriminate against fore ign suppliers.  The EC also clai ms that the Korean government 
has favoured US suppliers under two bilateral teleco mmunications agreemen ts between Korea 
and the US. Violations of GATT Articles I, I II and XVII are alleged.  On 22 October 1997, the 
parties notified the Secretariat of a mutually agreed solution.  
 
12. WT/DS42 – Japan – Measures Concerning Sound Recordings 
 Complaint by the European Communities.  Th is request for consulta tions, dated 24 May 1996, 
concerns the intellectual property protection of  sound recordings under GATT Article XXII:1.  
Violations of Articles 14.6 a nd 70.2 of the TRIPS Agreement are alleged.  Earlier, the United 
States requested consultations  with Japan on the same issue (WT/DS28), in which the EC 
joined.  On 7 November 1997, both partie s notified a mutually agreed solution.  
 
13. WT/DS43 – Turkey – Taxation of Foreign Film Revenues 
 Complaint by the United States.  This request  for consultations, dated 12 June 1996, concerns 
Turkey's taxation of revenues generated from the showing of foreign films.  Violation of GATT 
Article III is alleged.  On 9 January 1997, the Un ited States requested the establishment of  a 
panel.  At its meeting on 25 February 1997, the DSB established a panel.  Canada reserved its 
third-party rights to the dispute.  On 14 July 1997, both parties notified the DSB of a mutually 
agreed solution. 
 
14. WT/DS72 – European Communities – Measures Affecting Butter Products 
 Complaint by New Zealand.  This request, da ted 24 March 1997, is in respect of decisions by 
the EC and the United Kingdom' s Customs and Excise Department, to the effect that New 
Zealand butter manufactured by the ANMIX butter-making process and the spreadable butter-
making process be classified so as to be excl uded from eligibility for New Zealand's country-
specific tariff quota es tablished by the European Communi ties' WTO Schedule.  New Zealand 
alleges violations of Articles II, X and XI of GATT, Article 2 of the TBT Agreement, and 
Article 3 of the Agreement on Import Licens ing Procedures.  On 6 November 1997, New 
Zealand requested the establishment of a panel.   The DSB established a panel on 18 November 
1997.  The US reserved its third-party rights.  At the request of the complainants, dated 
24 February 1999, the Panel agreed, pursuant to Article 12.12 of the DSU, to suspend the panel WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 214  
 
 proceedings.  In a communication dated 11 N ovember 1999, the parties notified a mutually 
agreed solution to this dispute.   
 
15. WT/DS73 – Japan – Procurement of a Navigation Satellite 
 Complaint by the European Communities.  This request, dated  26 March 1997, is in respect of 
a procurement tender published by the Ministry of Transport (MoT) of  Japan to purchase a 
multi-functional satellite for Air Traffic Management.  The EC contends that the specifications in the tender were not neutral but referred explicitly to US specif ications.  This meant, the EC 
contends, that European bidders could effectively not participate in the tender.  The EC alleges 
inconsistency of this tender with Annex I of Appendix I of Japan's commitments under the 
Government Procurement Agreement (GPA). The EC  also alleges violations of Articles VI(3) 
and XII(2) of the GPA.  On 31 July 1997, the EC notified the Secretariat th at a mutually agreed 
solution had been reached with Japan in this di spute.  On 19 February 1998, the two parties 
communicated the text of their agreement to the DSB.  
 
16. WT/DS74 – Philippines – Measures Affecting Pork and Poultry 
 Complaint by the United  States.  This request, dated 1 April 1997, is in respect of the 
implementation by the Philippines of its tariff -rate quotas for pork and poultry.  The US 
contends that the Philippines' im plementation of these ta riff-rate quotas, in particular the delays 
in permitting access to the in -quota quantities and the licensing system used to administer 
access to the in-quota quantities, appears to be inconsistent with the obligations of the 
Philippines under Articles III, X, and XI of  GATT 1994, Article 4 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture, Articles 1 and 3 of the Agreemen t on Import Licensing Proc edures, and Articles 2 
and 5 of TRIMs.  The US further contends that  theses measures appear to nullify or impair 
benefits accruing to it directly or indirectly  under cited agreements.  On 12 March 1998, the 
parties communicated a mutually agreed solution to their dispute.     
 
17. WT/DS82 – Ireland – Measures Affecting the Grant of Copyright and Neighbouring 
Rights 
 Complaint by the United Stat es. On 14 May 1997, the US requested consultations with Ireland 
in respect Ireland's alleged fail ure to grant copyright and neighbouring rights under its law.  The 
US contended that this failure violates Ireland's obligations und er Articles 9-14, 63, 65 and 70 
of the TRIPS Agreement.  On 9 January 1998, the United States requeste d the establishment of 
a panel.  On 6 November 2000, the parties inform ed the DSB that they had reached a mutually 
satisfactory solution.  
 
18. WT/DS83 – Denmark – Measures Affecting the Enforcement of Intellectual Property 
Rights 
 Complaint by the United States.  This request , dated 14 May 1997, is in  respect of Denmark's 
alleged failure to make provisional measures av ailable in the context of civil proceedings 
involving intellectual property rights.  The US contends that this failu re violates Denmark's 
obligations under Articles 50, 63 and 65 of the TRIPS Agreement.  On 7 June 2001, the parties 
to the dispute notified to the DSB a mutu ally satisfactory solution on the matter. 
 
19. WT/DS85 – United States – Measures A ffecting Textiles and Apparel Products 
 Complaint by the European Communities.  This request, dated 23 May 1997, is in respect of 
changes to US rules of origin for textiles and apparel products.  The EC alleges that the US has 
introduced changes to its rules of origin for textile and apparel pr oducts, which affect exports of  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 215 
 
 
 EC fabrics, scarves and other flat  textile products to the US. As a result, the EC alleges that EC 
products are no longer recognised in the US as being of EC origin and lose the free access to the 
US market that they had hitherto enjoyed.  The EC contends that these changes in US rules of 
origin are in violation of the obligations of the US under Articles 2.4, 4.2 and 4.4 of the ATC, 
Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Rules of Origin, Article III of GATT 1994, and Article 2 of the 
TBT Agreement.  On 11 February 1998, the two pa rties notified their mutu ally agreed solution. 
 
20. WT/DS86 – Sweden – Measures Affecting the Enforcement of Intellectual Property 
Rights 
 Complaint by the United States.  This request , dated 28 May 1997, is in respect of Sweden's 
alleged failure to make provisional measures av ailable in the context of civil proceedings 
involving intellectual property rights.  The US contends that this failu re violates Sweden's 
obligations under Articles 50, 63 and 65 of th e TRIPS Agreement.  In a communication dated 2 
December 1998, the two parties notified a mutu ally agreed solution to this dispute. 
 
21. WT/DS91 – India – Quantitative Restrictions  on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and 
Industrial Products 
 Complaint by Australia.  This request, dated 16 July 1997, raises the same issues in respect of 
India's quantitative restrictions on imports of ag ricultural, textil e and industrial products as in 
the request by the US in DS90.  On 23 March 1998, the two parties notified a mutually agreed 
solution. 
 
22. WT/DS92 – India – Quantitative Restrictions  on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and 
Industrial Products 
 Complaint by Canada.  This request, dated 16 Ju ly 1997, raises the same issues in respect of 
India's quantitative restrictions on imports of ag ricultural, textil e and industrial products as in 
the requests by the US (DS90) and Australi a (DS91).  On 25 March 1998, the two parties 
notified a mutually agreed solution. 
 
23. WT/DS93 – India – Quantitative Restrictions  on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and 
Industrial Products 
 Complaint by New Zealand.  This request, date d 16 July 1997, raises the same issues in respect 
of India's quantitative restrictions on imports of ag ricultural, textile and i ndustrial products as in 
the requests by the US (DS90), Australia (DS91)  and Canada (DS92).  However, New Zealand 
makes an additional claim for nu llification and impairment of benefits accruing to it under 
GATT 1994. In a letter dated 14 September 1998, but communicated to th e Secretariat  on 
1 December 1998, the two parties notified a mu tually agreed solution to this dispute. 
 
24. WT/DS94 – India – Quantitative Restrictions  on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and 
Industrial Products 
 Complaint by Switzerland.  This request, dated 18 July 1997, raises the same issues in respect of 
India's quantitative restrictions on imports of ag ricultural, textil e and industrial products as in 
the requests by the US (DS90), Australia (DS91), Canada (DS9 2), and New Zealand (DS93).  
However, Switzerland does not invoke the Agr eement on Agriculture.  On 23 February 1998, 
the two parties notified a mutually agreed solution. 
 WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 216  
 
 25. WT/DS96 – India – Quantitative Restrictions  on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and 
Industrial Products 
 Complaint by the European Communities.  This request, dated 18 July 1997, raises the same 
issues in respect of India's quantitative restri ctions on imports of agricultural, textile and 
industrial products as in the requests by the US  (DS90), Australia (DS 91), Canada (DS92), New 
Zealand (DS93), and Switzerland (DS94).  In addition, the EC  is also alleging violations of 
Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the SPS Agreement.  On  7 April 1998, the two parties notified a mutually 
agreed solution. 
 
26. WT/DS99 – United States – Anti-Dumping  Duty on Dynamic Random Access Memory 
Semiconductors (DRAMS) of One Megabit or Above from Korea 
 Complaint by Korea.  This request, dated 14 A ugust 1997, is in respect of a decision of the US 
Department of Commerce (DoC) not to revok e the anti-dumping duty on dynamic random 
access memory semi-conductors (DRAMS) of one megabyte or above originating from Korea.  
Korea contends that the DoC's decision was 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 demonstrating 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.   
  At its meeting on 16 January 1998, the DSB establ ished a panel.  The Pa nel found the measures 
complained of to be in violation of Article 11.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  The report of 
the Panel was circulated on 29 January 1999. At its meeting on 19 March 1999, the DSB 
adopted the Panel Report. Korea requested that th is matter be referred to the original panel 
pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DS U.  Following adoption of the panel report by the DSB, Korea 
submitted a request to the effect that the matter be referred to the original panel pursuant to 
Article 21.5 of the DSU.  At its meeting on 25 April 2000, the DSB agreed to reconvene the 
original panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU.   The EC reserved its reserved its third-party 
rights. 19 September 2000, Korea has requested the Panel to suspend its work, including the issuance of the interim report, "until further no tification" pursuant to Article 12.12 of the 
DSU.  The Panel, in a letter sent to the pa rties on 21 September 2000, has agreed to this 
request. On 20 October 2000, the parties notifie d the DSB of a mutually  satisfactory solution 
to the matter, involving the revocation of the anti dumping order at issue as the result of a five-
year "sunset" review by the US Department of Commerce. 
 
27. WT/DS102 – Philippines – Measures Affecting Pork and Poultry 
 Complaint by the United States.  This request, dated 7 October 1997, is in respect of the same 
measures complained of by the US in DS74, but also includes Administrative Order No. 8, 
Series of 1997, which purports to amend the or iginal measure complained of in DS74.  On 12 
March 1998, the parties communicated a mutually  agreed solution to their dispute.   
 
28. WT/DS103 and WT/DS113 – Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and 
the Exportation of Dairy Products 
(See also Sections V and VI).  Complaints by the United States and New Zealand. 
 
 On 9 May 2003, Canada and the United Stat es, and Canada and New Zealand informed the 
DSB that they had reached mutually agreed solutions under Article 3.6 of the DSU in both 
disputes. 
  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 217 
 
 
 29. WT/DS115 – European Communities – Measures Affecting the Grant of Copyright and 
Neighbouring Rights 
 Complaint by the United States .  On 6 January 1998, the US re quested consultations with the 
EC regarding similar measures as  in WT/DS82 in respect of Ireland.  On 9 January 1998, the 
US requested the establishment of a panel.  On  6 November 2000, the pa rties notified the DSB 
that they had reached a mutually satisfactory solution. 
 
30. WT/DS119 – Australia – Anti-Dumping Measures on Imports of Coated Woodfree 
Paper Sheets 
 Complaint by Switzerland.  This request, da ted 20 February 1998, is in respect of the 
provisional anti-dumping measures applied on the imports of coated woodfree paper sheets 
from Switzerland.  Swit zerland contends that the investigation is not in conformity with 
Australia's commitments under Ar ticles 3 and 5 of the Anti-D umping Agreement.  On 13 May 
1998, the two parties notified a mutually agreed solution. 
 31. WT/DS124 – European Communities – Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights for 
Motion Pictures and Television Programs 
 Complaint by the United States.  This request, da ted 30 April 1998, is in respect of the lack of 
enforcement of intellectual property rights in Gre ece.  The US claims that a significant number 
of TV stations in Greece re gularly broadcast copyrighted motion pictures and television 
programs without the authorization of copyright  owners.  The US contends that effective 
remedies against copyright infringement do not appe ar to be provided or enforced in Greece in 
respect of these broadcasts.  The US alleges a violation of Articles  41 and 61 of the TRIPS 
Agreement. On 20 March 2001, the parties to th e dispute notified a mutually satisfactory 
solution on the matter to the DSB. 
 32. WT/DS125 – Greece – Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights for Motion Pictures 
and Television Programs 
 Complaint by the United States.  This request, dated 30 April 1998, is in respect of the same 
measures raised against the EC  above (DS124). On 20 March 2001, the parties to the dispute 
notified a mutually satisfactory solution on the matter to the DSB. 
 33. WT/DS151 – United States – Measures Affecting Textiles and Apparel Products 
 Complaint by the European Communities.  This dispute, dated 19 November 1998, is in 
respect of alleged changes to US rules of orig in for textiles and apparel products.  The EC 
discloses that this issue was the subject of an  earlier request for consultations (WT/DS85), in 
respect of which a mutually agreed solution w as notified to the DSB, pursuant to Article 3.1 
of the DSU.  However, the EC contends that the US has not implemented its commitments as 
contained in that agreement with the result that , in the EC view, the US is still acting in a 
manner inconsistent with its obligations under the WTO.  The dispute concerns changes 
allegedly introduced by the US to its rules of  origin for textiles and apparel products, which 
entered into force on 1 July 1996, which cha nges adversely affect exports of EC textile 
products to the US, in that as a result of these changes EC products are allegedly no longer 
recognised in the US as being of EC origin.  The EC alleges violations of Articles 2.4, 4.2 and 
4.4 of the ATC, Article 2 of the Agreement on Rules of Origin, Article III of GATT 1994, and Article 2 of the TBT Agreement.  In a communication dated 21 July 2000, the parties notified a mutually agreed solution to this dispute. 
 WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 218  
 
 34. WT/DS171 – Argentina – Patent Protection for Pharmaceuticals and Test Data 
Protection for Agricultural Chemicals 
Complaint by the United States.  On 6 May 1999, the US requested consultations with 
Argentina in respect of  
(i) the alleged absence in Argentina of e ither patent protection for pharmaceutical 
products or an effective system for providi ng exclusive marketing rights in such 
products, and 
(ii) Argentina's alleged failure to ensure that  changes in its laws, regulations and practice 
during the transition period provided under Article 65.2 of the TRIPS Agreement do 
not result in a lesser degree of consistency with the provisions of the TRIPS 
Agreement.   
 Under item (i), the US contended that the TRIPS Agreement does not permit WTO Members to allow third parties to market products subj ect to exclusive marketing rights without the 
consent of the right holder.  According to th e United States, Argentina's law does not provide 
product patent protection for pharmaceutical i nventions, or a system that conforms to 
Article 70.9 of the TRIPS Agreement with regard to the grant of exclusive marketing rights.  
The US therefore contended that Argentina's le gal regime appears to be inconsistent with 
Articles 27, 65 and 70 of the TRIPS Agreement.    
Under item (ii), the US contended that prior to August 1998, Argentina provided a ten year 
term of protection against unfair commercial us e for undisclosed test data or other data 
submitted to Argentine regulatory authorities in support of applications for marketing 
approval for agricultural chemical products.  The US further alleged that since the issuance in 
1998 of Regulation 440/98, which inter alia  revoked earlier regulations, Argentina has 
provided no effective protection for such data  against unfair commercial use.  The United 
States therefore alleges that Argentina's legal re gime is inconsistent with Article 65.5 of the 
TRIPS Agreement.  
 On 31 May 2002, the US and Argentina notif ied the DSB that they have reached an 
agreement on all of the matters raised by the US in its requests for consultations regarding 
this dispute and that concerning Argentina – Certain Measures on the Protection of Patents 
and Test Data ( WT/DS196).  
35. WT/DS190 – Argentina – Transitional Safe guard Measures on Certain Imports of 
Woven Fabrics of Cotton and Cotton Mixtures Originating in Brazil 
 Complaint by Brazil.  This request for a pane l, dated 11 February 2000 , concerns transitional 
safeguard measures applied by Argentina, as of   31 July 1999, against certain imports of 
woven fabrics of cotton and cotton mixtures origin ating in Brazil.  The measures at issue were 
applied through Resolution MEyOSP 861/99 of the Ministry of the Economy and Public Works and Services of Argentina.  In accordan ce with Article 6.11 of the Agreement on 
Textiles and Clothing, Brazil had referred the ma tter to the Textiles Monitoring Body (TMB) 
for review and recommendations, after consultati ons requested earlier by Argentina had failed 
to produce a mutually satisfactory solution.  At its meeting of 18-22 October 1999, the TMB conducted a review of the measures implemen ted by Argentina, having recommended that 
Argentina rescind the safeguard measures applied against imports from Brazil.  On 29 November 1999, in accordance with Article 8.10 of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing, 
Argentina notified the TMB that it consid ered itself unable to conform with the 
recommendations issued by the TMB.  At its meeting of 13-14 December 1999, the TMB conducted a review of the reasons given by  Argentina and recommended that Argentina  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 219 
 
 
 reconsider its position.  The TMB's recommenda tions notwithstanding, the matter remained 
unresolved.  Brazil is of the view that the tr ansitional safeguards applied by Argentina are 
inconsistent with Argentina's obligations under Arti cles 2.4, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.7, 6.8, 6.11, 
8.9 and 8.10 of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing and should, therefore, be rescinded forthwith.   
 
 At its meeting on 20 March 2000, the DSB estab lished a panel.  The EC, Pakistan, Paraguay 
and the US reserved their third-party rights.  In a communication dated June 2000, the parties notified a mutually agreed solution to this dis pute.  Pursuant to the agreement reached, Brazil 
retains the right to resume the procedures for the composition of the panel from the point where 
they stood at the time the agreement was reached. 
 
36. WT/DS196 – Argentina – Certain Measures on the Protection of Patents and Test Data 
Complaint by the United States. On 30 May 20 00, the US requested consultations with 
Argentina concerning Argentina's legal regimes governing patents in Law 24,481 (as 
amended by Law 24,572), Law 24,603, and Decr ee 260/96; and data protection in Law 
24,766 and Regulation 440/98, and in other re lated measures.  The US considered that 
Argentina:  
• fails to protect against unfair commercial use of undisclosed test or other data, submitted 
as a requirement for market approval of  pharmaceutical or agricultural chemical 
products; 
• improperly excludes certain subject matter, including micro-organisms, from 
patentability; 
• fails to provide prompt and effective provisional measures, such as preliminary 
injunctions, for purposes of preventing infringe ments of patent rights from occurring;  
• denies certain exclusive rights for patents, su ch as the protection of products produced by 
patented processes and the right of importation; 
• fails to provide certain safeguards for the granting of compulsory licenses, including 
timing and justification safeguards for compulsory licenses granted on the basis of inadequate working;  
• improperly limits the authority of its judiciary to shift the burden of proof in civil 
proceedings involving the infringements of process patent rights; and 
• places impermissible limitations on certain transitional patents so as to limit the 
exclusive rights conferred by these patents, and to deny the opportunity for patentees to amend pending applications in order to cl aim certain enhanced protection provided by 
the TRIPS Agreement. 
 
 According to the US, Argentina's legal regi mes governing patents and data protection are 
therefore inconsistent with Argentina's ob ligations under the TRIPS Agreement, including 
Articles 27, 28, 31, 34, 39, 50, 62, 65 and 70 of the Agreement.   
 
 On 31 May 2002, the US and Argentina notif ied the DSB that they have reached an 
agreement on all of the matters raised by the US in its requests for consultations regarding 
this dispute and that concerning Argentina – Pa tent Protection for Pharmaceuticals and Test 
Data Protection for Agricultural Chemicals (WT/DS171). 
 
37. WT/DS198 – Romania – Measures on Minimum Import Prices 
Complaint by the United States.  On 30 May 2000, the US requested consultations with 
Romania in respect of Romania's use of minimum import prices for customs valuation WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 220  
 
 purposes.  The measures at issu e were the Customs Code of 1997 (L141/1997), the Ministry 
of Finance General Customs Directive (Ordin ance No. 5, 4 August 1998), and other related 
statutes and regulations.  The United States asserted that, pursuant to these measures, 
Romania has established arbitrary minimum and maximum import prices for such products as meat, eggs, fruits and vegetables, clothing, foot wear, and certain distilled spirits.  The United 
States further asserted that Romania has institu ted burdensome procedures for investigating 
import prices when the c.i.f. value falls below the minimum import price.  The United States 
considered that Romania's measures are incons istent with its obligations under Articles 1 
through 7, and 12 of the Customs Valuation Ag reement; general notes 1, 2 and 4 of Annex 1 
of the Customs Valuation Agreement; Articles II,  X, and XI of the GAT T 1994; Article 4.2 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture; and Articles 2 and 7 of the Agreement on Textiles and 
Clothing.   On 26 September 2001, the US and Romania informed the DSB that they had reached a mutually satisfactory solution pursuant to Article 3.6 of the DSU.    
 
38. WT/DS199 – Brazil – Measures Af fecting Patent Protection 
Complaint by the United States.  On 30 May 2000,  the US requested consultations with Brazil 
in respect of those provisions of Brazil's 1996 industrial property law (Law No. 9,279 of 14 
May 1996; effective May 1997) and other relate d measures, which establish a "local working" 
requirement for the enjoyability of exclusive pate nt rights.  The US asserts that the "local 
working" requirement can only be satisfied by  the local production – and not the importation 
– of the patented subject-matter.  More sp ecifically, the US noted that Brazil's "local 
working" requirement stipulates that a patent sh all be subject to compulsory licensing if the 
subject-matter of the patent is not "worked" in the territory of Brazil.  The US further noted that Brazil explicitly defines "failure to be wo rked" as "failure to manufacture or incomplete 
manufacture of the product" or "failure to make  full use of the patented process".  The US 
considered that such a requirement is inconsis tent with Brazil's obligations under Articles 27 
and 28 of the TRIPS Agreement, and Article III of the GATT 1994.   
 At its meeting of 1 February 2001, the DSB established a panel. Cuba, the Dominican 
Republic, Honduras, India and Japan reserved their third party rights.  On 5 July 2001, the 
parties to the dispute notified to the DSB a mutually satisfactory solution on the matter. 
 
39. WT/DS210 – Belgium – Administration of Measures Establishing Customs Duties for 
Rice 
Request by the United States.  On 12 October 2000, the US requested consultations with the 
EC concerning the administration by Belgium of laws and regulations establishing the 
customs duties applicable to rice imported  from the United States. The United States 
considered that:  
• Belgium has failed to administer the pertinen t laws and regulations in a manner that is 
consistent with its WTO obligations, leading to the assessment of duties on rice imported 
from the United States in excess of the bound rate  of duty, in contravention of Article II 
of the GATT 1194;  
• Belgium's use of reference prices in the calcu lation of the applicable import duties would 
appear to be inconsistent with Article V II of the GATT 1994 and the Customs Valuation 
Agreement;   WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 221 
 
 
 • Belgium's refusal to recognize widely accep ted industry standards associated with the 
grading of rice appears to be inconsistent with Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 9 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade;  
• Belgium has failed to administer its custom s valuation determinations and its assessment 
of tariffs in a transparent manner, thereby im peding trade, and appears to have applied the 
measures in a manner that discriminates against rice imported from the United States. 
• According to the United States, the measures have  restricted imports of rice into Belgium. 
Thus, the Belgian measures also appear to be in consistent with Articles I, X and XI of the 
GATT 1994 and Article 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
• According to the United States, Belgium's measu res appear to be inconsistent with the 
following specific provisions of the identified agreements: Articles I, II, VII, VIII, X and 
XI of the GATT 1994; Articles 1-6, 7, 10, 14, 16 and Annex I of the Customs Valuation Agreement; Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade; 
Article 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture. Be lgium's measures also appear to nullify or 
impair the benefits accruing to the United St ates directly or indirectly under the cited 
agreements.  
 On 19 January 2001, the US requested the estab lishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 
1 February 2001, the DSB deferred the establishmen t of a panel.  Further to a second request 
to establish a panel by the US, the DSB establis hed a panel at its meeting of 12 March 2001.  
India and Japan reserved their third-party right s.  On 29 May 2001, the US requested the 
Director-General to determine the composition of  the Panel.  On 7 June 2001, the Panel was 
composed.  
On 26 July 2001, the US requested the Panel, pursuant to Article 12.12 of the DSU, to 
suspend its work until 30 September 2001 in light  of on-going consultations between the US 
and the EC.  On 27 September, the US requested a further suspension of the Panel from 1 to 9 October 2001.  On 9 October, the US requested to further suspend the work of the Panel until 1 November 2001.  On 1 November, the US requested to further suspend the work of the Panel until 16 November 2001.  On 19 Novemb er 2001, the US requested the Panel to 
suspend its work until 30 November 2001. 
 On 18 December 2001, the US and the EC in formed the DSB that they had reached a 
mutually agreed solution pursuant  to Article 3.6 of the DSU. 
 40. WT/DS231 – European Communities – Trade Description of Sardines 
(See also Sections V and VI above).  Complaint by Peru. 
 On 25 July 2003, the European Communities a nd Peru informed the DSB that they had 
reached a mutually agreed solution pur suant to Article 3.6 of the DSU. 
 
41. WT/DS235 – Slovakia – Safeguard Measure on Imports of Sugar 
Complaint by Poland.  On 11 July 2001, Po land requested consultations with Slovakia 
concerning the quantitative restrictions imposed  by Slovakia on imports of sugar (tariff 
heading 1701).  The imposition of the measure  in question was notified to the Committee on 
Safeguards and circulated in document G/SG/N /10/SVK/1.  Poland considered that this 
safeguard measure has been imposed in a manne r inconsistent with Slovakia's obligations 
under the Safeguards Agreement.  According to Poland, it appeared that Slovak authorities acted inconsistently with various provisi ons of the Safeguards Agreement, namely, WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 222  
 
 Article 3.1, Article 4.2(b), Article 5.2(a), Ar ticle 7.4, Article 12.1(b), Article 12.1(c) and 
Article 12.3 
 
Poland considered that the investigation and th e safeguard measure imposed have nullified or 
impaired the benefits accrui ng to Poland directly or indirectly under the Safeguards 
Agreement. 
 On 11 January 2002, the parties notified the DSB that they have reached  a mutually agreed 
solution within the meaning of Article 3.6 of th e DSU.  Accordingly, Slovakia agreed to a 
progressive increase of the level of its quota for imports of sugar from Poland between 2002 
and 2004, and Poland agreed to  remove its quantitative restriction on imports of butter and 
margarine.  Both parties agreed to implement the above by 1 January 2002.  
42. WT/DS237 – Turkey – Certain Import Procedures for Fresh Fruit 
Complaint by Ecuador.  On 31 August 2001, Ecua dor requested consultations with Turkey 
concerning certain import procedures for fresh fruits and, in particular, bananas.  The 
procedure requires, according to Ecuador, the i ssuance by the Turkish Ministry of Agriculture 
of a document, known as "Kontrol Belgesi".  Ecuador explained that this procedure is 
established under the "Communiqué for Standardi zation in Foreign Trade" published by the 
Under-Secretariat of Foreign Trade in the Official Journal 24271 of 25 December 2000 
(Annex 1 thereof).  Ecuador alleged that this pr ocedure, as applied by the Turkish authorities, 
is a barrier to trade which is inconsistent with the obligations of Turkey under GATT 1994, 
the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, the Agreement on 
Import Licensing Procedures, the Agreement on Ag riculture and the GATS.  In particular, 
Ecuador considered that the provisions of the WTO agreements with which Turkey's "Kontrol 
Belgesi" procedure appears to be inconsistent include the following: 
 
• Articles II, III, VIII, X and XI of the GATT 1994; 
• Articles 2.3 and 8 and Annexes B and C of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary 
and Phytosanitary Measures 
• Paragraphs 2, 3, 5 and 6 of Article 1 of  the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures; 
• Article 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture; and 
• Articles VI and XVII of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS).  
  On 20 September 2001, the EC requested to be joined in the consultations.  
 On 14 June 2002, Ecuador requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 24 June 
2002, the DSB deferred the establishment of a pa nel.  Further to a second request by Ecuador, 
the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 29 Ju ly 2002.  During the meeting, Ecuador also 
requested the DSB to suspend the composition of  the Panel as the parties were engaged in 
consultations to find a mutually satisfactory so lution to the dispute between them.  The EC 
and the US reserved their third-party rights.  On 7 August 2002, Colombia requested third 
party rights.    On 22 November 2002, the parties to the dispute informed the DSB that they had found a mutually agreed solution to their dispute.   WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 223 
 
 
 43. WT/DS250 – United States – Equalizing Ex cise Tax Imposed by Florida on Processed 
Orange and Grapefruit Products 
Complaint by Brazil.  On 20 March 2002, Brazil requested consultations with the US 
concerning the so-called "Equalizing Excise Ta x" imposed by the State of Florida on 
processed orange and grapefruit products produced  from citrus fruit grown outside the United 
States (Section 601.155 Florida Statutes).  Braz il indicated that since 1970, the state of 
Florida had imposed, pursuant to section 601.155 of the Florida Statutes, an "equalizing excise tax" on processed orange and processed grapefruit products, in amounts determined by 
the Florida Department of Citrus.  However, the statute by its terms – Section 601.155(5), 
Florida Statutes – exempted from the tax products "produced in whole or in part from citrus 
fruit grown within the United States."  In the view of Brazil the incidence of this tax on 
imported processed citrus products and not on  domestic products on its face constituted a 
violation of Articles II:1(a), III.1 and III:2 of GATT 1994. 
 
Brazil contended that the impact of the Flor ida equalizing excise tax had been to provide 
protection and support to domes tic processed citrus products and to restrain the importation of 
processed citrus products into Florida.  Since processed citrus products, principally in the form of frozen concentrated orange juice were among Brazil's most significant exports to the United States, Brazil was of the view that the restraint on their importation by the State of Florida constituted a nullificati on and impairment of benefits  accruing to Brazil under GATT 
1994.  Brazil reserved the right to raise add itional factual or legal points related to the 
aforementioned measure during the course of consultations. 
 
 On 16 August 2002, Brazil requested the establishment of the panel.  At its meeting on 
30 August 2002, the DSB deferred the establishmen t of a panel.  Further to a second request 
to establish a panel by Brazil, the DSB establis hed a panel at its meeting on 1 October 2002.  
The EC, Mexico and Paraguay reserved their thir d party rights to participate in the panel 
proceedings.  On 11 October 2002, Chile reserved its third party rights to participate in the 
panel proceedings. 
 
On 28 May 2004, the United States and Brazil in formed the DSB that they had reached a 
mutually agreed solution under Article 3.6 of the DSU. 
 
44. WT/DS261 – Uruguay – Tax Treatment on Certain Products 
 Complaint by Chile.  On 18 June 2002, Chile  requested consultations with Uruguay with 
regard to the tax treatment applied by the latter to certain products.   
 
 In particular, Chile referred to Uruguay's In ternal Specific Tax ("IMESI") which taxes the 
first alienation and the importation by non- taxpayers of certain goods which include, inter 
alia, beverages (alcoholic beverages, juices, mineral water), tobacco and cigarettes, 
automobiles, lubricants and fuel.  The fiscal framework for the IMESI is contained in various legal instruments, including Chapter 11 of the 1996 "Texto Ordenado", Decree 96/990 of 21 February 1990 from the Ministry of Economy a nd Finance, and the bi-monthly Resolutions of 
the Direction General for Taxation.  This framework was recently amended as regards 
cigarettes by Decree 200/2002 of 3 June 2002.   
  Chile contended that, in most cases, taxable in come for this tax is determined by using a 
fictitious price.  According to Chile, this system would increase the taxable income if 
compared to the real sales price, especially in the case of foreign goods.  Chile submits that 
the IMESI violates Articles I and III of GATT 1994 because it establishes a tax system based 
on the use of fictitious prices in order to determ ine the taxable income.  Chile considered that WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 224  
 
 this system discriminates between national a nd imported products and, in some cases, 
between imported products depending on their origin .  Chile further claimed that this alleged 
discrimination constitutes a de facto  import prohibition as regards certain products.  
 
Chile recalled that in the trade policy review fo r Uruguay in 1998, this system was subject to 
some discussion and Uruguay indicated, at the time, that they were in the process of 
elaborating norms that ensured an equal treatme nt to all products regardless of their origin. 
 On 4 July 2002, the European Communities requested to join th e consultations.  On 5 July 
2002, Mexico requested to join the consultations .  On 3 April 2003, Chile requested the DSB 
to establish a panel.  At its meeting on 15 Apr il 2003, the DSB deferred the establishment of 
the panel.  Further to a second request by Chile, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 19 May 2003.  The EC, Mexico and the US reserved their third-party rights.  On 4 July 2003, the Panel was composed.  On 15 August 2003, the Chair of the Panel in formed the DSB that 
both parties had jointly requested the Panel to suspend its work for a period of 60 days, until 
12 October 2003.  The Panel has agreed to this  request and is suspending its work from 
14 August to 12 October 2003.  On 12 October 2003, both parties jointly requested the Panel 
to extend the suspension of its work for another 60 days, until 11 December 2003.  The Panel agreed to this request and was continuing to suspend its work until 11 December 2003.  On 
11 December 2003, both parties jointly requested  the Panel to suspend its work for a final 
additional period of 30 days, until 10 January 2004,  in order to formalize a mutually agreed 
solution over the coming days and notify it to the Dispute Settlement Body, in accordance 
with Article 3.6 of the DSU.  The Panel agreed to this request and is suspending its work from 
12 December 2003 to 10 January 2004.  On 8 January 2004, Chile and Uruguay informed the DSB that they had reached a mutually 
agreed solution under Article 3, paragraphs 5 and 6 of the DSU.  
 
45. WT/DS313 – European Communities – Anti-Dum ping Duties on Certain Flat Rolled 
Iron or Non-Alloy Steel Products From India 
Complaint by India. On 5 July 2004, India requested consultations with the European 
Communities concerning the imposition of definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of 
certain flat rolled products of iron or non-alloy steel, of a width of 600 mm or more, not clad, 
plated or coated, in coils, not further work ed than hot-rolled ("HR Coils") from India. 
 According to the Indian request, the EC violat es Article 9.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, 
which requires that an anti-dumping duty shall be collected on a non-discriminatory basis on 
imports of the product from all sources found to  be dumped and causing injury. India claims 
that, while anti-dumping measures are in force against imports into the Community of HR 
Coils from India, no measures are in force ag ainst imports of the same product concerned 
from Egypt, Slovakia and Turkey, notwithstanding  that the products imported from the latter 
three countries were also found by the Commission to be dumped and causing injury to the Community industry. 
 
India also considers that the anti-dumping measures concerned violate certain other provision of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, including, bu t not limited to the following: Article 3, 
especially Articles 3.4 and 3.5; and Article 4.1.  
On 22 October 2004, India and the European Communities notified the DSB that they had 
reached an agreement with r espect to the matter raised by India in its request for 
consultations. According to the notification, the European Communities agreed to terminate 
the measure at issue.   WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 225 
 
 
  
B. OTHERS 
1. WT/DS1 – Malaysia – Prohibition of Imports of Polyethylene and Polypropylene 
 Complaint by Singapore.  This, the first disput e under the WTO's dispute settlement procedures, 
was settled on 19 July 1995, with Singapor e's withdrawal of the panel request. 
 
2. WT/DS9 – European Communities – Duties on Imports of Cereals 
 Complaint by Canada.  Canada requested cons ultations with the EC on 10 July 1995 concerning 
EC regulations implementing so me of the EC's Uruguay Round concessions on agriculture, 
specifically, regulations which impose a duty on wheat imports ba sed on reference prices rather 
than transaction values, with the result that th e duty-paid import price for Canadian wheat will 
be greater than the effective in tervention price increased by 55% whenever the transaction value 
is greater than the representa tive price.  A panel was established at the DSB meeting on 
11 October 1995, but no panelists have been selected until now. 
 3. WT/DS13 – European Communities – Duties on Imports of Grains 
 Complaint by the United States.  This request for consultations, dated 19 July 1995, has 
potentially broader product coverage than the case brought by Canada (WT/DS9, item 7(5)(a) 
below) but otherwise concerns much the same issues.  On 28 September 1995, the US requested 
the establishment of a panel to be considered at the meeting of the DSB on 11 October 1995, 
but the EC objected to it. The US again requested the establishment of a panel to be considered 
at the meeting of the DSB on 3 December 1996, but  later dropped the request at the meeting. On 
13 February 1997 the US made a renewed request fo r the establishment of a panel.  At the DSB 
meeting on 20 March 1997, the US w ithdrew its request for a panel in this matter.  On 26 March 
1997, the US made a fresh request for the establ ishment of a panel.  On 30 April 1997, the US 
informed the Secretariat that it was withdrawing it s request for a panel in view of the fact that 
the EC had adopted regulati ons implementing an agreemen t reached on this matter. 
 
4. WT/DS15 – Japan – Measures Affecting the Purchase of Telecommunications 
Equipment 
 Complaint by the European Communities.  Th is request for consultations, dated 18 August 
1995, claims that a 1994 agreement reached betwee n the United States and Japan concerning 
telecommunications equipment is inconsistent with  GATT Articles I:1, III:4 and XVII:1(c), and 
nullifies or impairs benefits accruing to the EC.  The United States has joined in the 
consultations.  Although there has be en no official notification, th e case appears to have been 
settled bilaterally. 
 5. WT/DS17 – European Communities – Duties on Imports of Rice 
 Complaint by Thailand.  This request for cons ultations, dated 3 Octobe r 1995, covers more or 
less the same grounds as Canadi an (WT/DS9) and the US (WT/ DS13) complaints over the EC 
duties on grains  ((5)(a) and 5(3) above).  In addition, Thailand seems to have alleged that the 
EC has violated the most-favoured-nation requirement under GATT Article I in their 
preferential treatment of basmati  rice from India and Pakistan.  See also the Uruguayan 
complaint (WT/DS25). 
 WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 226  
 
 6. WT/DS23 – Venezuela – Anti-Dumping Investigation in Respect of Imports of Certain 
Oil Country Tubular Goods (OCTG) 
 Complaint by Mexico dated 5 December 1995.  By  a letter dated 6 May 1997, Mexico informed 
the Secretariat that Venezuela had terminated the anti-dumping investigation in this matter.  
 
7. WT/DS25 – European Communities – Implementation of the Uruguay Round 
Commitments Concerning Rice 
 Complaint by Urugu ay.  This request for consultations , dated 18 December 1995, seems similar 
to the claim by Thailand (WT/DS17).   
 8. WT/DS32 – United States – Measures Affecting Imports of Women's and Girls' Wool 
Coats 
 Complaint by India.  In a communicati on dated 14 March 1996, India requested the 
establishment of a panel, claiming that the tr ansitional safeguard measures on these textile 
products by the United States we re inconsistent with ATC Articl es 2, 6 and 8.  A panel was 
established in the DSB meeting on 17 April 1996.   However, on 25 April 1996, India requested 
"termination of further action in pursuance of the decision taken by the DSB on 17 April 1996 
to establish a panel" in light of the US remo val of the safeguard measures on these products, 
which came into effect from 24 April 1996.  
 
9. WT/DS38 – United States – The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act 
 Complaint by the European Communities.  On 3 May 1996 the European Communities 
requested consultations with the United States  concerning the Cuban Liberty and Democratic 
Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 and othe r legislation enacted by the US Congress 
regarding trade sanctions against Cuba.  The EC claims that US trade restrictions on goods of 
Cuban origin, as well as the possible refusal of  visas and the exclusion of non-US nationals 
from US territory, are inconsistent with th e US obligations under the WTO Agreement. 
Violations of GATT Articles I, III, V, XI and XIII, and GATS Articles I, III, VI, XVI and XVII are alleged. The EC also alleges that even if these measures by the US may not be in violation of specific provisions of GATT or GATS, they nevertheless nullify or impair its expected benefits under GATT 1994 and GA TS and impede the attainment  of the objectives of GATT 
1994. The European Communities requested the establishment of a panel on 3 October 1996. 
The DSB established a panel at its meeting on 20 November 1996.  At the request of the EC, 
dated 21 April 1997, the Panel suspended its work .  The Panel's authority lapsed on 22 April 
1998, pursuant to Article 12.12 of the DSU. 
 
10. WT/DS39 – United States – Tariff Increases on Products from the European 
Communities 
 Complaint by the European Communities.  In it s request for consultations, dated 17 April 1996, 
the EC claimed that the measures taken unde r the Presidential Proclamation No. 5759 of 24 
December 1987 (retaliation against the "hormones" directive), which resulted  in tariff increases 
on products from the European Communities, are in consistent with GATT Articles I, II and 
XXIII, as well as DSU Articl es 3, 22 and 23.  On 19 June 1996, the EC requested the 
establishment of a panel.  In its request, the EC further claimed that the United States apparently 
failed to "ensure the conformity of its laws, re gulations and administrativ e procedures with its 
obligations" under the WTO, with  respect to the application of Section 301 of the 1974 Trade 
Act in this case (WTO Agreement Article XVI:4).  The United States withdrew the measure on  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 227 
 
 
 15 July 1996, and the EC decided not to pursue its panel request, reserving its rights to 
reconvene, if necessary, a further meet ing of the DSB at an early date. 
 
11. WT/DS49 – United States – Anti-Dumping Investigation Regarding Imports of Fresh or 
Chilled Tomatoes from Mexico 
 Complaint by Mexico.  On 1 July 1996, Mexico requested consultations w ith the Unit ed States 
regarding the anti-dumping investigation on fr esh and chilled tomatoes imported from Mexico 
under Article 17.3 of the Anti-dumping Agreement. Violations of GATT Ar ticles VI and X as 
well as Articles 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7.1 of the Anti-dumping Agreemen t are alleged.  Mexico claims 
this to be a case of urgency, where the expedi ted procedures under Articles 4.8 and 4.9 of the 
DSU are applicable. US Commerce Department offi cial releases indicate that the case has been 
settled. 
 
12. WT/DS57 – Australia – Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Import Credit Scheme 
 Complaint by the United States.  This request, dated 7 October 1996, concerns a complaint by 
the US against subsidies being granted and main tained by Australia on leather products under 
the TCF scheme. A violation of Article 3 of the SCM Agreement is alleged. The US is also 
invoking Article 30 of the SCM Agreement to the exte nt that it incorporates  by reference Article 
XXIII:1 of GATT 1994. An offi cial release from the USTR in Washington on 25 November 
1996 indicates that the case has been settled.  
 
13. WT/DS77 – Argentina – Measures Affecting Textiles and Clothing 
 Complaint by the European Communities.  This request dated 17 April 1997, is in respect of a 
range of specific duties on textiles and clothi ng which have allegedly resulted in increased 
duties and have led to applied tariffs that exce ed the 35% binding made by Argentina.  The EC 
contends that these measures ar e a violation of Argentina's co mmitments under Article II of 
GATT 1994, and also of Article 7 of the ATC.  See similar US complaint in DS56 pending 
before a panel.  On 10 September 1997, the EC re quested the establishment of a panel.  At its 
meeting on 16 October 1997, the DSB established a panel.  The US reserved its third-party 
rights.  The Panel suspended its work at the re quest of the EC on 29 July 1998.  Pursuant to 
DSU Article 12.12, the panel's au thority lapsed on 29 July 1999, 12 months having passed since 
the suspension of the panel's work. 
 
14. WT/DS88 – United States – Measure Affecting Government Procurement 
 Complaint by the European Comm unities.  This request, dated 20 June 1997, is in respect of an 
Act enacted by the Commonwealth  of Massachusetts on 25 June 1996, entitled Act regulating 
State Contracts with companies doing Business w ith Burma (Myanmar).  The Act provides, in 
essence, that public authorities of the Commo nwealth of Massa chusetts are not allowed to 
procure goods or services from any persons who do business with Burma.  The EC contends 
that, as Massachusetts is covered under the US schedule to the GPA,  this violates Articles 
VIII(B), X and XIII of the GPA Agreement.  The EC also contends that the measure also 
nullifies benefits accruing to it under the GPA, as well as impeding the attainment of the objectives of the GPA, including that of main taining balance of rights and obligations.  On 
8 September 1998, the EC reques ted the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 
21 October 1998, the DSB established a panel.  Ja pan reserved its third-party right.  The DSB 
agreed that pursuant to Article 9.1 of the DSU, a single panel would examine this dispute 
together with DS95 below. At the request of  the complainants, dated 10 February 1999, the 
Panel agreed, pursuant to Article 12.12 of the DSU, to suspend the panel proceedings (which 
also applies to DS95 below).  Since the panel wa s not requested to resume its work, pursuant to WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 228  
 
 Article 12.12 of the DSU, the authority for establishment of the panel lapsed as of 11 February 
2000 (which also applies to DS95 below). 
 
15. WT/DS89 – United States – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Colour Television 
Receivers from Korea 
 Complaint by Korea.  This request, dated 10 Ju ly 1997, is in respect of the imposition of anti-
dumping duties by the US on imports of colour television receivers (CTVs) from Korea.  Korea 
contends that the US has for the past twelve  years maintained an anti-dumping order for 
Samsung's CTVs despite the absence of dump ing and the cessation of exports from Korea, 
without examining the necessity of continuing to impose such duties.  Korea contends that the 
US actions violate Articles VI.1 and VI.6(a) of GATT 1994, and Articles  1, 2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.6, 4.1, 
5.4, 5.8, 5.10, 11.1 and 11.2 of the Anti-Dum ping Agreement.  On 6 November 1997, Korea 
requested the establishment of a panel.  On 5 January 1998, Korea informed the DSB that it was 
withdrawing its request for a panel but reserving it s right to reintroduce the request.  At the DSB 
meeting on 22 September 1998, Ko rea announced that it was definitively withdrawing the 
request for a panel because the imposition of anti-dumping duties had now been revoked.  
 
16. WT/DS95 – United States – Measure Affecting Government Procurement 
 Complaint by Japan.  This request, dated 18 July 1997, is in respect of the same issued raised by 
the EC in DS88 above. On 8 September 1998, Japan requested the establishment of a panel.  At 
its meeting on 21 October 1998, the DSB established a panel.  The DSB agreed that pursuant to 
Article 9.1 of the DSU, a single panel would ex amine this dispute together with DS88 above. 
 
17. WT/DS101 – Mexico – Anti-Dumping Investigation of High-Fructose Corn Syrup 
(HFCS) from the United States 
 Complaint by the United States.  On 4 Septem ber 1997, the US requested consultations with 
Mexico in respect of an anti-dumping investig ation of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) from 
the United States conducted by  Mexico, resulting in a prelim inary determination of dumping 
and injury, and the consequent imposition of  provisional measures on imports of HCFS from 
the United States.  The US alleged violations of Ar ticles 5.5, 6.1.3, 6.2, 6.4 and 6.5 of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement.   
 
 On 8 May 1998, the US requested consultatio ns in respect of the same anti-dumping 
investigation which had resulted in the impositi on of definitive anti-dumping measures on these 
imports from the United  States.  See WT/DS132 and WT/DS132/RW.  
 
18. WT/DS106 – Australia – Subsidies Provided to  Producers and Exporters of Automotive 
Leather 
 Complaint by the United States.  This reque st, dated 10 November 1997, is in respect of 
Australia's alleged prohibited su bsidies provided to its producers  and exporters of automotive 
leather.  The US contends that these measures by Australia violate Article 3 of the Subsidies Agreement.  On 9 January 1998, the United States requested the establishmen t of a panel.  At its 
meeting on 22 January 1998, the DSB established a panel in accordance with the accelerated 
procedure under the Subsidies Agreement.  On 11  June 1998, the US wit hdrew its request for a 
panel. See also WT/DS126. 
  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 229 
 
 
 19. WT/DS181 – Colombia – Safeguard Measure on Imports of Plain Polyester Filaments 
from Thailand 
Complaint by Thailand.  On 28 and 29 Septem ber 1998, at the request of Colombia pursuant 
to Article 6.7 of the ATC, consultations t ook place between Thailand and Colombia regarding 
imports into the latter of plain polyester filaments (tariff heading 5402.43) from Thailand.  
Failing the consultations, Thailand requested th e establishment of a panel on 7 September 
1999 to settle this dispute.  Colombia's safeguard  measure is alleged to be inconsistent with 
Article 2 of the Agreement on Textiles and Cl othing (ATC) regarding the application of a 
transitional safeguard mechanism and with Artic le 2 of the ATC regarding the introduction 
and application of restrictions by Members.  The safeguard measures imposed by Colombia 
on 26 October 1998 have been subject to the two- stage examination and review procedures by 
the Textiles Monitoring Body (TMB).  The TMB recommended at its fiftieth meeting held on 
16-19 November 1998 that Colombia rescind the measure.  On 22 December 1998, Colombia 
notified the TMB of its inability to conform w ith this TMB recommendation and provided the 
TMB with reasons therefor.  At its fifty-sec ond meeting on 18-20 January 1999, the TMB 
reviewed the matter and repeated its recomme ndation to Colombia to rescind the safeguard 
measure forthwith.  At the DSB meeting on 27 October 1999, Thailand announced that it was withdrawing its request for a panel because the Colombian safeguard measure had been terminated. 
 
20. WT/DS193 – Chile – Measures Affecting the Transit and Importation of Swordfish 
 Complaint by the European Communities.  On 19 April 2000, the EC requested consultations 
with Chile regarding the prohibition on unloadi ng of swordfish in Chilean ports established 
on the basis of Article 165 of the Chilean Fisher y Law (Ley General de Pesca y Acuicultura), 
as consolidated by the Supreme Decree 430 of  28 September 1991, and extended by Decree 
598 of 15 October 1999.   
 
 The EC asserted that its fishing vessels operati ng in the South East Pacific are not allowed 
under Chilean legislation to unload their swordfis h in Chilean ports either to land them for 
warehousing or to transship them onto other vessel s.  The EC considered that, as a result, 
Chile makes transit through its ports impossible for swordfish.  The EC claimed that the 
above-mentioned measures are in consistent with the GATT 1994, and in particular Articles V 
and XI thereof.   
  At its meeting of 12 December 2000, the DSB estab lished a panel further to the request of the 
EC.  Australia, Canada, Ecuador, India, New Zealand, Norway, Iceland and the US reserved their third-party rights.  On 23 March 2001, th e EC informed the Dir ector-General of the 
WTO and the Chairman of the DSB that th ey agreed to suspend the process for the 
constitution of the panel. On 28 March 2001, Chile did likewise.  
 On 12 November 2003, the parties to the dispute informed the Chairman of the DSB that they 
agreed to maintain the suspension of th e process for the constitution of the panel. 
 21. WT/DS227 – Peru – Taxes on Cigarettes 
Complaint by Chile.  On 1 March 2001, Chile reque sted consultations with Peru concerning 
the Peruvian Supreme Decree No. 158-99-EF of 25 September 1999 modifying appendices III 
and IV of the General Sales Tax and Selec tive Consumption Tax Law, which identify the 
goods subject to the selective consumption tax.  Article 1B of the said Supreme Decree 
amends the tax applied to cigarettes made of da rk tobacco, standard cigarettes made of bright WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 230  
 
 tobacco and premium cigarettes made of bright tobacco, setting a different specific tax for 
each one of these categories of cigarettes ranging from S/0.025 to S/0.100 per unit.   According to Chile, the difference in the amount of the tax appears to be contingent only on 
the number of countries in which the different co mmercial brands of cigarettes are marketed – 
more than three or less than three – a criterion which is a source of concern for Chile, since it 
could signify discrimination against imported cigarettes, from Chile for example, which, being marketed in more than three countries, are subject to a higher tax than local brand 
cigarettes.  In Chile's view, this situation, wh ich is damaging to Chilean cigarette exports to 
Peru, could constitute a violation of the GATT 1994 – in particular, but not necessarily 
exclusively, of Article III.2 of the GATT 1994 – and of a repeated Appellate Body 
jurisprudence in this area. 
 
At its meeting of 24 June 2001, the DSB establishe d a Panel further to Chile's request.  None of 
the Members reserved their  third-party rights. 
 
On 12 July 2001, Chile announced its intention to  withdraw the complaint on the grounds that 
the contested measure, i.e. the specific selective consumption tax system applied to cigarettes by Peru, had been amended on 30 June 2001 with the publication of Supreme Decree No. 128-2001 of the Ministry of the Economy and Finance of Peru, which entered into force 
on 1 July 2001.  As from that date, cigarettes are subject to the Peruvian common selective 
consumption tax system at a rate of 100 per cent,  regardless of their origin, price, type or 
quality of tobacco and/or the number of sales ma rkets.  This amendment in the tax regime 
applicable to cigarettes was the result of a ruling of the Constitutional Court of Peru on 
19 June 2001.  
 22. WT/DS228 – Chile – Safeguard Measures on Sugar 
Complaint by Colombia.  On 19 March 2001, Co lombia requested consultations with Chile 
concerning definitive safeguard measures relating to  sugar.  This request was replaced by that 
in dispute WT/DS230 above.  
23. WT/DS232 – Mexico – Measures Affecting the Import of Matches 
 Complaint by Chile.  On 17 May 2001, Chile re quested consultations with Mexico in respect 
of a series of Mexican laws and regulati ons which are alleged to constitute unnecessary 
barriers to the import of Chilean matches. Ac cording to Chile, pursuant to these laws and 
regulations, matches have been classified in Mexico as an explosive and hazardous product, 
due to a confusion between the chemical element " fósforo " (phosphor) and " fosfóros 
(o cerillos) de seguridad " (matches). As a result, Chilean matches have been subject to 
control by the National Defense Ministry and,  consequently, to a series of requirements 
regarding packaging, entry, liquidation, trans portation and storage applicable to explosives 
and other hazardous substances, with the aim of providing protection to the Mexican industry.  
According to Chile, these measures are inconsistent with, inter alia , the following provisions: 
Articles 1, 2 and 5 of the TBT Agreement;  Ar ticles 1, 3 and 5 of the Agreement on Import 
Licensing Procedures; and Article III:4 of the GATT 1994. 
 
On 2 February 2004, Chile informed the DSB that  it wished formally to withdraw the request 
for consultations and bring this matter to a clos e as its complaints had been adequately met as 
a result of negotiations with Mexico.   
  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 231 
 
 
 24. WT/DS240 – Romania – Import Prohibition on Wheat and Wheat Flour 
Complaint by Hungary.  On 18 October 2001, Hunga ry requested consultations with Romania 
concerning Romania's Joint Decree of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food Industry and Forestry No. 119069 (16.07.2001), Ministry of Family and Health No. 495 (18.07.2001) and the National Consumer Protection Authority No . 1/3687 (19.07.2001) prohibiting the import 
of wheat and wheat flour which does not meet certain quality standards.   
  In particular, Hungary claimed that: 
• the import prohibition has been imposed in a manner inconsistent with Romania's 
obligations under Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994; and 
• the introduction of the abovementioned quality requirements is in breach of Article III:4 
of the GATT 1994 because domestically produced  products are not subject to the same 
quality requirements. 
 On 30 October 2001, Hungary requested consu ltations with Romania according to the 
urgency procedure provided in Article 4.8 of  the DSU.  On 27 November 2001, Hungary 
requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 10 December 2001, the DSB 
deferred the establishment of the panel.  On 10 December 2001, Hungary requested the 
holding of a special meeting of the DSB in order to establish a panel.  On 20 December 2001, further to the abrogation by Romania of its le gislation regarding the quality requirements for 
imported wheat and wheat flour, Hungary withdrew its request.  
25. WT/DS255 – Peru– Tax Treatment on Certain Imported Products 
Complaint by Chile.  On 22 April 2002, Chile request ed consultations with Peru in respect of 
its tax treatment on imports of fresh fruits, ve getables, fish, milk, tea and other natural 
products.  In particular, Chile explained that  before the adoption of Law 27.614, published on 
29 December 2001, both the sale in the Peruvian market and the importation into Peru of the 
products at issue had been exempt from sales ta x.  Further to the adoption of Law 27.614, the 
importation into Peru of the products at issu e was no longer exempt from sales tax (18 per 
cent) while the sale of those products in the Peruvi an market was still exempt from sales tax.    
 
Chile considered that the different tax treat ment between domestic and imported products 
constituted a violation by Peru of its national treatment commitments both: 
 
• at bilateral level: Article 19 of the Economic  Complementarity Agreement (ECA 38) and, 
• at multilateral level (WTO): Article III of GA TT 1994.  In this regard, Chile claimed that 
Law 27.614 by providing that the exemption from sales tax only applied to the sale in Peru and not to the importation, was incons istent with Article III of the GATT 1994.  
 Chile contended that the above measure prejudi ced the competitiveness of Chile's exports to 
Peru of the said products, in particular a lthough not limited to, apples, table grapes and 
peaches.  
 
On the grounds that the products affected by th e measure at issue were natural goods and thus 
perishable, Chile was invoking the urgency cons ultation procedure under Article 4.8 of the 
DSU and already announced that it would make use of the expeditious  Panel and Appellate 
Body procedures referred to in Article 4.9 of the DSU.   
 
On 8 May 2002, the United States requested to join the consultations.    WT/DS/OV/23 
Page 232  
 
 On 13 June 2002, Chile requested the establishmen t of a panel.  At its meeting on 24 June 
2002, the DSB deferred the establishment of a pane l.  On 26 July 2002, Chile requested that 
its second request for the establishment of a pa nel be removed from the agenda of the DSB 
meeting on 29 July 2002.  
On 25 September 2002, Chile informed the DSB that it was withdrawing this complaint as 
Peru had repealed Article 2 of Law 27.614  and as a result the disputed measures had 
disappeared.   
 
26. WT/DS284 – Mexico – Certain Measures Preventing the Importation of Black Beans 
from Nicaragua  
Complaint by Nicaragua.  On 17 March 2003, Nicar agua requested consultations with Mexico 
regarding certain measures imposed by Mexico, which prevent the importation of black beans 
from Nicaragua.  These measures include:  
 
• The administration of the procedures set out in Official Standard 006-FITO-95 and 
Official Standard 028-FITO-95, including the refusal of the competent Mexican authorities to furnish importers with th e document containing the phytosanitary 
requirements necessary for the importation of black beans from Nicaragua;  
• The more favourable treatment that the co mpetent Mexican authorities accord in the 
administration of the above procedures to like products originating in countries other than Nicaragua; 
• The failure to publish the specific phytosan itary requirements for the importation of 
black beans from Nicaragua; and 
• The failure to publish the rules, requireme nts and procedures concerning the tender for 
the quota allocation of black beans from Nicaragua.  
 In Nicaragua's view, the above measures are in consistent with Mexico 's obligations under 
Articles I:1, X:1, X:3(a), XI:1 and XIII:1 of  the GATT 1994 and Articles 1.2, 1.3, 1.4(a) and 
2.2(a) of the Licensing Agreement.  In addition,  Nicaragua claims that, if the above measures 
are sanitary or phytosanitary measures as define d in the SPS Agreement, they would also be 
inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 5.1, 7 and paragraph 1 of Annex B of the 
SPS Agreement.  On 27 March 2003, the United States requested to join the consultations.  On 28 March 2003, 
Canada requested to join the consultations. 
 
On 8 March 2004, Nicaragua informed the DSB that it wished formally to withdraw the 
request for consultations as its complaints had been adequately addressed as a result of 
negotiations with Mexico.   
 27. WT/DS309 – China – Value-Added Tax on Integrated Circuits 
 Complaint by the United States.  On 18 March 2004, the United States requested 
consultations with China concerning China' s preferential value-added tax ("VAT") for 
domestically-produced or designed in tegrated circuits ("IC").   
 
 The United States claims that, although Ch ina provides for a 17 percent VAT on ICs, 
enterprises in China are entitled to a partial refund of the VAT on ICs that they have 
produced, resulting in a lower VAT rate on their products.  In the US view, China thus  WT/DS/OV/23 
 Page 233 
 
 
 appears to be subjecting imported ICs to higher taxes than applied to domestically produced 
ICs and to be according less favourable treatment to imported ICs. 
  In addition, the United States claims that China allows fo r a partial refund of VAT for 
domestically-designed ICs that, because of technological limitations, are manufactured 
outside of China.  In the US view, China thus  appears to be providing for more favourable 
treatment of imports from one Member than from others,  and also is discriminating against 
services and service suppliers of other Members. 
  The United States considers that these measures ar e inconsistent with the obligations of China 
under Articles I and III of the GATT 1994, the Protocol on the Accession of the People's 
Republic of China (WT/L/432), and Article XVII of the GATS. 
 
On 26 March 2004, the European Communities requested to join the consultations. On 
31 March 2004, Japan requested to join the c onsultations. On 1 April 2004, Mexico and the 
Separate Customs Territory of  Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu requested to join the 
consultations. On 28 April 2004, China informed  the DSB that it had accepted the requests of 
the European Communities, Japan and Me xico to join the consultations.   
 
On 14 July 2004, China and the United States no tified the DSB that they had reached an 
agreement with respect to the matter raised  by the United States in its request for 
consultations. According to the notification, Ch ina agreed to amend or revoke the measures at 
issue to eliminate the availability of VAT re funds on ICs produced and sold in China and on 
on ICs designed in China but manufactured ab road by 1 November 2004 and 1 September 
2004 respectively.  The effective dates are 1 April 2005 and 1 October 2004 respectively.  
 
__________