RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DSB/M/239 
5 November 2007 
 (07-4796) 
Dispute Settlement Body 
25 September 2007  
 
 
   
MINUTES OF MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard
 
on 25 September 2007  
 
Chairman:  Mr. Bruce Gosper (Australia) 
  
Subjects discussed
: Page  
 
1. Surveillance of implementation of recommendations adopted by the DSB.........................2  
(a) United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropr iations Act of 1998:  Status report by 
the United States .............................................................................................................. ...........2  
(b) United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from 
Japan:  Status report by  the United States...................................................................................4  
(c) United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act:  Status report by the 
United States .................................................................................................................. .............5  
2. United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000:  
Implementation of the recommenda tions adopted by the DSB ............................................5  
(a) Statements by Canada, the Eur opean Communiti es and Japan...................................................5  
3. China – Measures affecting the protection and enforcement of intellectual 
property rights ................................................................................................................ ..........8  
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by the United States ...................................................8  
4. United States – Laws, regulations and methodology for calculating dumping 
margins ("Zeroing")............................................................................................................ .....8 
(a) Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the European Communities:  Request for the 
establishment of  a panel....................................................................................................... .......8  
5. Appointment of Appella te Body members............................................................................10  
(a) Statement by the Chairman...................................................................................................... .10 
 WT/DSB/M/239 
Page 2  
 
   
1. Surveillance of implementation of recommendations adopted by the DSB 
(a) United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropria tions Act of 1998:  Status report by the 
United States (WT/DS176/11/Add.58) 
 
(b) United States – Anti-dumping measures on cer tain hot-rolled steel products from Japan:  
Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.58) 
 (c) United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act:  Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/Add.33) 
 
1. The Chairman
 recalled that Article 21.6 of the DSU required that "unless the DSB decides 
otherwise, the issue of implementation of the re commendations or rulings shall be placed on the 
agenda of the DSB meeting after six months follo wing the date of establishment of the reasonable 
period of time pursuant to paragraph 3 and shall remain on the DSB's agenda until the issue is 
resolved".  He proposed that the three sub-items  to which he had just referred be considered 
separately. 
(a) United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropria tions Act of 1998:  Status report by the 
United States (WT/DS176/11/Add.58) 
2. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS176/ 11/Add.58, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the impl ementation of the DSB's recommendations in the 
case concerning US Section 211 Omni bus Appropriations Act of 1998. 
3. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 13 September 2007, in accordance w ith Article 21.6 of the DSU.  As noted in the 
status report, a number of legislative proposals th at would implement the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings in this dispute had been introduced in th e current Congress, in both the US Senate and the US 
House of Representatives.  The US administration co ntinued to work with the Congress to implement 
the DSB's recommendations and rulings. 
4. The representative of the European Communities  said that a strong and non-discriminatory 
protection of IP rights worldwide was essential in the development of strong and mutually beneficial trade relations.  In that respect, the conclusion of  the TRIPS Agreement was a major achievement of 
the Uruguay Round negotiations.  It was, therefore, hi ghly regrettable that the United States, one of its 
main promoters, had now failed to send the message of the need to live up to its rules.  In the past 
months, there had been, however, some positiv e signs.  Bipartisan bills that would, inter alia , repeal 
Section 211 had been introduced in the US Congr ess in June 2007 and had already received support 
from 65 co-sponsors.  This added to other bills intr oduced earlier that would also repeal Section 211 
and were supported by 62 co-sponsors. The EC hop ed that the introduction of these bills showed a 
renewed and genuine interest of the United States to finally bring itself into compliance with its 
TRIPS obligations.  It was in the interest of all, including of the US Industry, that the United States 
finally complied with its obliga tions under the TRIPS Agreement. 
5. The representative of Cuba
 said that the United States was yet again submitting the same 
report before the DSB regarding Section 211.  Not a word had been changed in that report.  Nor, 
essentially, had its intentions change d with regard to settling this dispute.  When countries condemned 
the US lack of will and failure to comply, the United States repeated that  their accusations were 
groundless.  One might think that Cuba, too, was propounding the same reasons month after month, 
and that the EC as well as other dele gations with systemic concerns at these serious failures to comply 
were also repeating the same arguments.  However, there was a great difference between those  WT/DSB/M/239 
 Page 3 
 
 
  arguments;  i.e. those put forward by the United St ates were wrong and those put forward by the rest 
of the world were the assertion of a right that had been flouted.  The defence of rights, prompt settlement of disputes and prohibition of unilateral determinations were the agreed objectives of the 
multilateral trading system.  The way in which the United States was disregarding the principle of prompt compliance could set a precedent that woul d undermine the very foundations of the dispute 
settlement system. 
6. Section 211 was part of the concessions made by the United States to an economically 
powerful group linked with the anti-Cuban extreme right based in South Florida, as payment for 
electoral favours in exchange for the continuatio n of its hostile policy towards Cuba.  Section 211 
complemented and extended the US blockade of Cuba, which would shortly be once again judged by 
the international community in the US General As sembly, and, as had happened for the last 15 
consecutive years, that government would be request ed to put an end to a criminal policy that was 
unjustified both ethically and legally.  The United States had stated that its Congress was working on 
various statutory proposals in order to comply with the DSB's decision on this dispute.  Its contempt for the decisions of the DSB and the US General Assembly was revealed by proposals that 
perpetuated this piece of legisl ation by introducing insignificant changes to Section 211. It could no 
longer be claimed that the delay of more than five  years in complying with the decisions of the DSB 
was a way of putting the security and credibility of th e dispute settlement mechanism to the test.  The 
fact was that no one any longer believed in the exis tence of a rapid, effective and reliable regulatory 
system for settling disputes.  Cuba, with rights on its side and the support of a DSB decision, called 
upon the United States to repeal Section 211 with imme diate effect and to show more respect for the 
WTO and its Members. 
7. The representative of Thailand
 said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report and the statement made at the present meeting.   Thailand wished to jo in previous speakers in 
expressing its concern over the systemic implications  of this dispute.  Non-implementation of the 
DSB's rulings and recommendations undermined th e rules-based multilateral trading system.  
Thailand thus called on the United States to take th e necessary and urgent steps to comply with its 
obligations under the TRIPS Agreement. 
8. The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  said that his delegation thanked 
Cuba for its statement, which it fully endorsed , and which, as on previous occasions, enabled 
delegations to have an updated picture of the ma tter.  His country also noted the status report 
submitted by the United States.  In spite of the e xpressions of goodwill by the United States made at 
previous meetings, delegations were, once again, gathered at the present meeting to listen to a 
reiterated status report on the case in question, a situation which was not conducive to a rapid 
conclusion to this matter, as one would hope for.  The United States had insisted that it had a good 
record of full compliance with its obligations in the vast majority of the disputes in which it had been 
involved.  In this regard, his delegation would recall the old adage that "it is better to travel hopefully 
than to arrive".  Accordingly, in the interests of  maintaining the good record, which the United States 
had claimed, his country would urge the United Stat es to put an end to this long-running dispute by 
coming up with a solution mutually satis factory to the parties concerned. 
9. The representative of China  said that, like other Members, China, once again, wished to 
express its concerns with regard to this protract ed implementation.  Five years had passed and the 
implementation issue pertaining to this case was s till before the DSB under discussion.  While China 
noted the encouraging development within the Un ited States on this matter, there was yet no clear 
indication when this matter would hopefully be reso lved.  Bearing in mind the systemic impact that 
the undue delay of full implementation of the DSB's rulings would cause to the integrity and efficiency of the dispute settlement system, China,  once again, urged the United States to double its 
efforts to fully implement the DSB's decision pertaining to this case. WT/DSB/M/239 
Page 4  
 
  10. The representative of Nicaragua
 said that, as had already been stated by Cuba, all Members 
were aware of the arguments and concerns which had been expressed by diff erent delegations since 
the DSB's decision regarding this dispute.  Nicar agua thanked the United States for its report.  
Nevertheless her country had always expressed its systemic concern that an important WTO Member 
should respect the DSB's decision and that both larg e and small delegations should all respect such 
decisions.  Nicaragua, therefore, once more urge d the United States to comply with the DSB's 
decision pertaining to the dispute under consideration,  and hoped that the parties to the dispute would 
soon be in a position to report to the WTO and the DSB on compliance in this dispute.  
11. The representative of India  said that, due to systemic interests, her country, once again, 
wished to express its concerns on protracted impl ementation process in this case.  India thanked the 
United States for the status report and the statement made at the present meeting.  It was regrettable 
that the implementation issue in this case was s till before the DSB under discussion.  Although more 
than five years had passed since the DSB had adopted the panel and the Appellate Body's 
recommendations, there was no indication when th is matter would hopefully be resolved.  As 
mentioned on past occasions, a continued non-compliance situation by WTO Members clearly 
undermined the credibility of the system and the caref ully negotiated balance of rights and obligations 
of the entire Membership. 
12. The representative of Viet Nam  said that, as a new WTO Member, Viet Nam expected all 
WTO rules to be strictly respected.  However, Viet  Nam, was surprised by the fact that the DSB's 
rulings, in several cases, had not been implemente d for a long period of time, and in the case under 
discussion for more than five years.  Like many other developing countries, despite facing no few 
difficulties, Viet Nam still tried its best to meet all its obligations as a WTO Member.  Therefore, 
Viet Nam wished to echo other Members in request ing the implementation of the DSB's rulings and 
recommendations in this dispute without further dela y so as to ensure the efficiency of the system. 
13. The representative of the United States  said that regarding the EC's statement, the United 
States regretted that the EC was again suggesting that US actions in this dispute had somehow 
undermined the authority of the TRIPS Agreement.   The United States failed to understand how its 
commitment to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute and its efforts to 
comply, as noted by the EC in its reference to th e various legislative proposals currently before the 
US Congress, could undermine the "authority" of the TRIPS Agreement.  To the contrary, these 
affirmed Members' commitments to the TRIPS Agreemen t.  With respect to the interventions by other 
Members expressing "systemic" concerns, the reco rd showed that the United States had fully 
complied in the vast majority of its disputes.  In th at connection, his delegation wished to recall that at 
the previous DSB meeting, the United States ha d announced that it had implemented the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in four disputes.  As  for the remaining few, including the dispute under 
discussion, the United States was activ ely working towards compliance.  
14. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(b) United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan:  
Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.58) 
15. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS184/ 15/Add.58, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the impl ementation of the DSB's recommendations in the 
case concerning US anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan. 
16. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 13 September 2007, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  As of 23 November 2002, the US authorities had addresse d the DSB's recommendations and rulings with  WT/DSB/M/239 
 Page 5 
 
 
  respect to the calculation of anti-dumping margins in the hot-rolled steel anti-dumping duty 
investigation at issue in this dispute.  Details  were provided in document WT/DS184/15/Add.3.  The 
US administration would work with the US Congress with respect to the recommendations and rulings of the DSB that had not already been addressed by the US authorities by 23 November 2002. 
17. The representative of Japan
 said that his country thanked the United States for its statement 
and the latest status report in this dispute.  Japan also acknowledged that in November 2002 the 
United States had taken certain measures to implement the part of the DSB's recommendations, as reported by the United States.  However, it was regrettable that while it had been almost five years since then, and more than six years after the DSB had adopted its recommendations, the issue of 
implementation in this case still remained on the DS B's agenda.  As Japan had repeatedly stated 
before the DSB, a full and prompt implementati on of the DSB's recommendations and rulings was 
essential for maintaining the credibility of the WTO di spute settlement system.  In this regard, Japan 
noted the statement made by the United States, al ong with its latest status report, that the US 
administration was working with the new US Congr ess to pass specific legislative amendments that 
would implement the DSB's recommendations and ru lings.  Japan wished to renew its strong hope 
that the US administration would accelerate its efforts to work with the US Co ngress in order to come 
to full compliance without further delay. 
18. The DSB took note
 of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(c) United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act:  Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/Add.33) 
19. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS160/ 24/Add.33, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the impl ementation of the DSB's recommendations in the 
case concerning Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act. 
20. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 13 September 2007, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  The US 
administration would work closely with the US C ongress and would continue to confer with the EC, 
in order to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution of  this matter.  In this regard, the United States 
appreciated the EC's statement at the 31 August 2007  DSB meeting that it remained prepared to work 
with the United States to seek a mu tually satisfactory solution to th is dispute.  The United States 
shared the EC's goal of discussing how such a solution could be achieved. 
21. The representative of the European Communities  said that there was no need to repeat the 
history of this case, which had been on the DSB's ag enda for quite some time;  if that was not an 
understatement.  The EC needed to see action soon.  The EC was of course prepared to work with the 
United States to resolve the dispute. 
22. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
2. United States – Continued Dumping and Subsid y Offset Act of 2000:  Implementation of 
the recommendations adopted by the DSB 
(a) Statements by Canada, the European Communities and Japan 
23. The Chairman  said that this item was on the agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
Canada, the European Communities and Japan.  He invited the respective representatives to speak. WT/DSB/M/239 
Page 6  
 
  24. The representatives of Canada
 said that her country was plea sed that duty deposits collected 
by the United States after 30 September would no lo nger be subject to the Byrd Amendment.  While 
this was a significant step forward, duty de posits collected by the United States before 
1 October 2007, would continue to be subject to disbursement.  Canada remained disappointed that 
for more than a year, the United States had neither  submitted status reports nor had taken action to 
repeal the Byrd Amendment in full. 
25. The representative of th e European Communities  said that the EC expected that the United 
States would, once again, claim having fully impl emented the DSB's ruling and recommendations in 
this dispute.  Yet, in a few days, the United States would start a new distribution under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act.  Provisional am ounts published by the United States indicated that 
the distribution to come would likely be the most important thus far.  The EC was still waiting for a 
convincing explanation as to how this reconciled with the United States' assertion month after month 
that it had taken all actions necessary to bring it self in compliance with its WTO obligations.  The 
DSB's recommendation, the full implementation of which had been claimed, required stopping those 
distributions which were in breach of Article 18. 1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 32.1 
of the SCM Agreement.  This should have b een done by 27 December 2003, and not at some 
undefined future date, at the convenience of the Unite d States.  As long as the distributions under the 
CDSOA continued, the United States would be in breach of Articles 18.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 32.1 of the SCM Agreement.  Therefore, the EC wished to ask again the 
United States if and what steps it intended to take to stop the transfer of anti-dumping and 
countervailing duties to its industry.  The EC also renewed its call on the United States to abide by its 
clear obligation under Article 21.6 of the DSU, and to submit implementation reports in this dispute. 
26. The representative of Japan
 said that initiated by a Federal Notice1, issued on 31 May 2007, 
the distribution process under the Continued Dumpi ng and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 ("CDSOA") 
was well underway for fiscal year 2007.  Based on  the information contained in the preliminary 
CDSOA amounts, available as of 30 April 2007, also published in May 2007, funds preliminary 
available to US domestic industries for the next distribution would amount to some US$279 million.  
The past experiences with the CDSOA demonstrated that the final amounts that would be eventually 
distributed were likely to be substantially higher  than these preliminary figures.  The notice and 
announcement demonstrated that the CDSOA had been repealed only in form , but was still in force 
and fully operational.  Although Japan recognized that a duty collected on entries entered as from 1 October 2007 would not be subject to the distri butions, "the distribution process will continue until 
all entries made before [that date] ar e liquidated and the duties are collected".
2  Under the US system, 
such liquidation and collection could take years to co me.  Thus, contrary to the repeated US assertion 
that it had taken all necessary steps for implementation in this case, these latest US actions rendered further support to the view that the United Stat es had still failed to fully implement the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in this  case.  Japan, once again, urged the United States to immediately 
terminate the illegal distribution and to repeal the CDSOA not just in form  but also in substance.  
Until then, Japan considered that the US compliance was incomplete and the issue of implementation 
in this dispute must be under surveillance by the DS B pursuant to Article 21.6 of the DSU.  In this 
connection, Japan reiterated that the United Stat es was under obligation to provide the DSB with a 
status report, pursuant to Article 21.6 of the DSU.   Japan reserved all its rights under the DSU until 
the United States came into full compliance.   
27. The representative of Brazil
 said that his country thanked Canada, the EC and Japan for 
maintaining this matter on the DSB's agenda.  In less than one week, the Un ited States would begin 
the seventh round of disbursements under the Byrd Amendment.  According to preliminary figures 
                                                      
1 "Notice of Intent to Distribute Offset for Fiscal  Year 2007", 72 Federal Register at 29582 et seq. 
(dated 29 May 2007). 
 2 71 Federal Register at 31336 et seq.(dated 1 June 2006).   WT/DSB/M/239 
 Page 7 
 
 
  released by the US authorities, US domestic industry would receive US$279 million as a result of that 
WTO-inconsistent measure being still operative in defiance of the repeated assertion by the United 
States that full compliance had been achieved in this  case.  With this next distribution, the Byrd 
Amendment would have channelled, since fiscal year  2001, almost US$2 billion into the US domestic 
industry's pockets at the expense of foreign produ cers and exporters and of WTO Members' rights.  
And more was yet to come in light of the conditions  applying to the repeal of the Byrd Amendment, 
pursuant to the "Deficit Reduction Act of 2006".  Anti-dumping and countervailing duties collected 
on products entered into the Un ited States up to 30 September 2007 w ould still be handed out to the 
US domestic industry no matter when the duties we re liquidated, and despite the fact that the 
reasonable period of time to fully implement the recommendations in the present dispute had expired 
on 27 December 2003.  Brazil wished to reiterate that  full compliance on the part of the United States 
would only come through the complete elimination of  all disbursements under the Byrd Amendment.  
Until this condition was met, WTO Members should be able to exercise any rights related to the non-
compliance situation they faced in this case.  
28. The representative of India  said that her country joined prev ious speakers in thanking Canada, 
the EC and Japan for raising this issue at the pr esent DSB meeting once again.  India shared their 
concerns and supported their request for the Unite d States to explain how full compliance had been 
achieved in this particular dispute.  However, Indi a noted that at the end of this month, the duties 
collected would be no more subject to the Byrd Am endment.  However, India was disappointed that 
the United States had failed to submit the status report for the past year. 
29. The representative of Thailand  said that his country wished to join previous speakers in 
thanking Canada, the EC, and Japan for continuing to bring this matter before the DSB.  As noted in 
previous meetings, Thailand remained disappoi nted at the United States' continued illegal 
disbursement of funds under the CDSOA.  Thailand also remained disappointed  at the Unites States' 
continued lack of status reports on its outstanding implementation in this  dispute.  Therefore, Thailand 
again urged the United States to cease its WTO-inc onsistent disbursements, to repeal the Byrd 
Amendment with immediate practical effect, and to resume providing status reports until such actions 
were taken and this matter had been fully resolved. 
30. The representative of China  said that his country thanked Ca nada, the EC and Japan for once 
again raising this item at the DSB meeting.  Chin a shared the view of the previous speakers that, 
despite the efforts of the United States up to th is moment, the implementation issue had not been 
resolved in this dispute within the framework of Ar ticle 21 of the DSU.  Therefore, China wished to 
join them in urging the United States to comply fully with the DSB's rulings. 
31. The representative of the United States  said that, as his delegation had already explained at 
previous DSB meetings, the US President had signed the Deficit Reduction Act into law on 
8 February 2006.  That Act included a provisio n repealing the Continued Dumping and Subsidy 
Offset Act of 2000.  Thus, the United States had ta ken all actions necessary to implement the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in these disput es.  Regarding comments concerning CDSOA 
disbursements, the United States was surprised by the assertion that the United States would not have 
implemented the DSB's recommendations and ruling s until the last CDSOA distribution had been 
made and the EC's specific claims of breach today.  Of course, such questions were for panels to 
decide.  With respect to comments regarding further status reports in this matter, those Members who had inscribed this item on the agenda of the present meeting were,   of course, free to do so, but the 
United States failed to see what purpose would be served by further submission of status reports 
repeating the progress the United States had made in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings. 
32. The DSB took note
 of the statements.  WT/DSB/M/239 
Page 8  
 
  3. China – Measures affecting the protection and enforcement of intellectual property 
rights 
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by the United States (WT/DS362/7) 
33. The Chairman
 recalled that the DSB had considered this matter at its meeting on 
31 August 2007, and had agreed to revert to it.  He drew attention to the communication from the 
United States contained in document WT/DS362/7, a nd invited the representative of the United States 
to speak. 
34. The representative of the United States  said that, at the 31 August DSB meeting, his country 
had briefly described its concerns with three aspects of the Chinese legal regime for the protection and 
enforcement of intellectual property rights.  His dele gation did not wish to repeat that description at 
the present meeting.  The United States had taken no te of China's statement made at the 31 August  
DSB meeting, including China's comments about the efforts it had made to develop and enforce its IPR regime.  As his delegation had stated previ ously, the United States recognized that China had 
made the protection of intellectual property rights a priority, and that China had taken active steps to 
improve IPR protection and enforcement.  The fact remained, however, that bilateral discussions on 
the specific matters described in the US panel request had not resulted in a mutually agreeable 
solution to the US concerns.  The United States,  therefore, once again requested that the DSB 
establish a panel to examine the matters set forth in the US panel request. 
35. The representative of China
 said that his country had fully el aborated its position on this issue 
on previous occasions, including at the 31 August DSB meeting, and would not repeat it at the present meeting.  It was regrettable that the United St ates requested the establishment of the panel for a 
second time.  While remaining confident that China's relevant measures were c onsistent with relevant 
WTO rules, China strongly opposed the US attemp t to impose on developing Members, through this 
case, an extra obligation that would go beyond what had been specified in the TRIPS Agreement and 
shall defend its interests in the future process. 
36. The DSB took note
 of the statements and agreed  to establish a panel in accordance with the 
provisions of Article 6 of the DSU w ith standard terms of reference. 
37. The representatives of Argentina , the European Communities , Japan , Mexico  and Chinese 
Taipei  reserved their third-party rights to pa rticipate in the Panel's proceedings. 
4. United States – Laws, regulations and methodology for calculating dumping margins 
("Zeroing") 
(a) Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by th e European Communities:  Request for the 
establishment of a panel (WT/DS294/25) 
38. The Chairman  drew attention to the communica tion from the European Communities 
contained in document WT/DS294/25 , and invited the representative of the European Communities to 
speak. 
39. The representative of the European Communities  said that on 9 July 2007, the EC had 
requested consultations with the United States on th e measures allegedly taken to comply with the 
DSB's rulings and recommendations in this dispute.  The consultations held on 30 July had allowed 
for a better understanding of respective positions, however, the EC was disappointed that those 
consultations had failed to settle the di spute.  That left the EC no choice, but to move to the next stage 
by requesting the establishment of a panel at the present meeting.  Under the terms of the 
Understanding regarding the procedures under Articl es 21 and 22 of the DSU reached with the United  WT/DSB/M/239 
 Page 9 
 
 
  States, the panel would be established at the present meeting upon the first request.  The EC's request 
should not come as a surprise.  The EC had expresse d its dissatisfaction with US actions several times 
and in detail, but no corrective actions had been taken 
40. In particular, the EC was concerned that  the United States was still collecting duties 
calculated with zeroing in many of the cases challe nged by the EC and that nothing had been done to 
eliminate zeroing in the 16 administrative reviews.  A couple of cases were also causing particular 
concern.  In the case on "Stainless Steel Sheet and St rip in Coils from Italy", the EC was still waiting 
for proper implementation five months after the end of the implementation period.  The exporter 
concerned (ThyssenKrupp-AST) should have a de minimis  margin without zeroing and not be subject 
to an AD anymore, but had been denied this by US DOC's refusal to correct an obvious arithmetic 
error.  Similarly, a decision was still awaited in  the case of Ball bearings from the UK, where one 
company, NSK UK, should also have a zero duty in its  latest review.  It was now more than five 
months after the implementation deadline, but the US  DOC still refused to take any action to remove 
zeroing.  This left the company concerned in a to tally unjustifiable position with no choice but to bear 
a 16,87 per cent duty entirely created by a WTO br each, or go through, at its own expenses, an 
administrative review with an uncertain outcome.  In addition to requesting the establishment of a 
panel, the EC would also want to hear from the United States why it had not submitted a status report 
before the present meeting.  In its latest report, th e United States had stated that "With respect to the 
15th investigation, Certain Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Italy, Commerce is expected to issue a determination imminently".  Thereby, it had admitted that its implementing actions were incomplete even in its understanding of its oblig ations.  The EC recalled, once again, that under 
Article 21.6 of the DSU, the issue of implementati on shall remain on the agenda until the issue was 
resolved and the Member concerned sh all submit beforehand a status report. 
41. The representative of the United States
 said that his country was disappointed that the EC was 
seeking the establishment of a panel.  However, pursuant to the US understanding with the EC, which 
had been circulated to the DSB in docum ent WT/DS294/21, the United States would accept 
establishment of a panel at the present meeting.  As the United States had informed the EC during 
consultations, the United States had complied fully with the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  
The United States was confident that the panel would so agree.  The United States also wished to note 
that not all of the measures in the EC's panel re quest were measures taken to comply with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings, and were, therefore,  not within the scope of the Article 21.5 
proceeding. 
42. With regard to the EC's suggestion that the United States should have filed another status 
report, the United States had explained at the pr evious DSB meeting that the United States had 
completed the last investigation still pending, involving stainless steel from Italy.  On that basis, the United States had also informed the DSB that it ha d implemented the recommendations and rulings of 
the DSB in this dispute.  The United States was, ther efore, surprised to hear the EC suggest that the 
United States was under a continuing obligation to provi de a status report.  The United States was not 
aware of any Member that continued providing status  reports after it had informed the DSB that it had 
implemented the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  The EC was no exception in this regard.  For 
example, the EC had not provided status reports a ll these many years in disputes on "Hormones" and 
"Bananas", the two longest running disputes in WTO history, which were currently the subject of 
dispute settlement proceedings over compliance.  
43. The representative of the European Communities
 said that the EC considered that in each of 
the 31 cases condemned in the past year's ruling, the United States was under the obligation to stop 
applying duty rates created or inflated by zeroing.  All the measures identified in the EC's request for 
consultations contributed to mainta ining zeroed duty rates in force after the implementation deadline.  
For that reason, the EC considered that they we re measures which the WTO needed to review when 
examining whether or not the United States ha d implemented the DSB's recommendations and WT/DSB/M/239 
Page 10  
 
  rulings.  Previous DSB's rulings clearly established that the measures taken to comply were not 
limited to those identified by the implementing Member and fully supported the EC approach. 
44. The DSB took note
 of the statements and agreed , pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU, to refer 
to the original Panel, if possible, the matter  raised by the European Communities in document 
WT/DS294/25.  The Panel would have  standard terms of reference. 
45. The representatives of India , Japan  and Mexico  reserved their third-part y rights to participate 
in the Panel's proceedings. 
5. Appointment of Appellate Body members 
(a) Statement by the Chairman 
46. The Chairman , speaking under Other Business", referre d to his fax of 5 September 2007 
regarding the Appellate Body selection process, and recalled that the Selection Committee would 
interview the candidates proposed for the Appellate Body on 26 and 27  September and 11 and 
15 October.  All the necessary arrangements had already been made by the Secretariat in this respect.  Furthermore, in accordance with past practice, on 16, 17 and 18 October,  the Selection Committee 
would make itself available to meet, upon request, w ith interested delegati ons who would wish to 
express their views on the candidates.  Delegations wishing to do so were invited to contact the 
Council and TNC Division to make an appointment.  Alternatively, delegations could send their 
comments in writing addressed to the Chairman of th e DSB, in care of the Council and TNC Division, 
by no later than c.o.b. 18 October 2007.  Shortl y, thereafter, the Selection Committee would inform 
delegations of its recommendations re garding the four positions in the Appellate Body so that the final 
decision could be taken by the DSB at its regular meeting on 19 November 2007. 
47. The DSB took note
 of the statement.  
 
 48. Just prior to the closure of the meeting, fo llowing the Chairman's announcements regarding 
next DSB meetings , the representative of Colombia  said that his delegation wished to express 
concerns regarding a special DSB meeting to be he ld on 28 September to consider Panama's request 
for the establishment of a panel to examine its comp laint with regard to Colombia's indicative prices 
and restrictions on ports of entry (DS366).  Colombia wished to express its disagreement and dissatisfaction regarding this matter since a special  DSB meeting was being convened to consider a 
panel request for the first time.  According to Co lombia's interpretation of the DSU, special DSB 
meetings could be convened to co nsider panel requests for the second time.  Colombia believed that 
the convening of this special meeting to consider Panama's panel request for the first time impaired 
Colombia's rights of defence.  In this regard, F ootnote 5 to Article 6.1 of the DSU provided that a 
special DSB meeting could be convened to cons ider a panel request for the second time.  In 
Colombia's view this special rule took precedence over general rules. 
49. The Chairman
 thanked Colombia for the statement and said that under the DSU provisions 
"the DSB shall meet as often as necessary to carry out its functions within the time-frames provided in 
this Understanding".  He noted Colombia's c oncern regarding the convening of the special DSB 
meeting and proposed that the DSB take note of the statement. 
50. The DSB took note  of the statements.  
__________