RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DSB/M/289 
21 January 2011 
 (11-0349) 
Dispute Settlement Body 
23 November 2010  
 
 
 
MINUTES OF MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard  
on 23 November 2010  
 
Chairman:  Mr. Yonov Frederick Agah (Nigeria) 
 
  Prior to the adoption of the Agenda
, the representative of Ukraine stated that, in light of the 
fact that Armenia had recently intensified its consu ltations with Ukraine in the dispute:  "Armenia – 
Measures Affecting the Importation and Internal Sale of Cigarettes and Alcoholic Beverages" 
(WT/DS411/2/Rev.l), his country expected that Arme nia would shortly propose solutions to end its 
discriminatory regime for the goods concerned a nd would comply with its WTO obligations.  
Therefore, at the present meeting, Ukraine requested  that item 3 concerning Ukraine's request for the 
establishment of a panel be removed from the proposed Agenda.  He said that the removal of this item 
from the proposed Agenda was without prejudice to Uk raine's right to bring this matter back before 
the next meeting for the second consideration by the DSB should the parties fail to reach an agreement and no resolution of this matter be possible. 
 The Chairman
 proposed that, in light of Ukraine's request, item 3 concerning Ukraine's 
request for the establishment of a panel be removed from the proposed Agenda. 
 
 The DSB so agreed . 
  Subjects discussed
: Page  
 
1. Surveillance of implementation of recommendations adopted by the DSB.........................2  
(a) United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropr iations Act of 1998:  Status report by 
the United States .............................................................................................................. ...........2  
(b) United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from 
Japan:  Status report by  the United States...................................................................................5  
(c) United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act:  Status report by 
the United States .............................................................................................................. ...........6  
(d) European Communities1 – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products:  Status report by the European Union .........................................................................6  
                                                      
1 On 1 December 2009, the Treaty of Lisbon amendi ng the Treaty on Europe an Union and the Treaty 
establishing the European Community (done at Lisb on, 13 December 2007) en tered into force.  On 
29 November 2009, the WTO received a verbal note (WT /L/779) from the Council of the European Union and 
the Commission of the European Communities stating that, by virtue of the Treaty of Lisbon, as of 
1 December 2009, the European Union replaces and succeeds the European Community. WT/DSB/M/289 
Page 2  
 
  (e)
 United States – Measures relating to zeroing and sunset reviews:  Status report by 
the United States .............................................................................................................. ...........7  
(f) United States – Continued existence and a pplication of zeroing methodology:  Status 
report by the United States.................................................................................................... ......7  
(g) United States – Laws, regulations and methodology for calculating dumping margins 
("zeroing"):  Status repor t by the Unite d States .........................................................................8  
2. United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000:  
Implementation of the recommenda tions adopted by the DSB ............................................8  
(a) Statements by the European Union and Japan ............................................................................8  
3. Adoption of the 2010 draft Annual Report of the Dispute Settlement Body.....................10  
4. Proposed nomination for the indicative list of governmental and 
non-governmental panelists ...................................................................................................10  
  
1. Surveillance of implementation of recommendations adopted by the DSB 
(a) United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appr opriations Act of 1998:  Status report by 
the United States (WT/DS176/11/Add.96) 
 (b) United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan:  
Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.96) 
 
(c) United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act:  Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/Add.71) 
 (d) European Communities – Measures affecting th e approval and marketing of biotech products:  
Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.34) 
 
(e) United States – Measures relating to zeroi ng and sunset reviews:  Status report by 
the United States (WT/DS322/36/Add.14) 
 (f) United States – Continued existence and app lication of zeroing methodology:  Status report 
by the United States (WT/DS350/18/Add.11) 
 
(g) United States – Laws, regulations a nd methodology for calculating dumping margins 
("zeroing"):  Status report by the United States (WT/DS294/38/Add.5) 
  
1. The Chairman
 recalled that Article 21.6 of the DSU required that unless the DSB decided 
otherwise, the issue of implementation of the re commendations or rulings shall be placed on the 
Agenda of the DSB meeting after six months follo wing the date of establis hment of the reasonable 
period of time and shall remain on the DSB's Agenda  until the issue was resolved.  He proposed that 
the seven sub-items under Agenda item 1 be considered separately.     
(a) United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropr iations Act of 1998:  Status report by 
the United States (WT/DS176/11/Add.96) 
2. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS176/ 11/Add.96, 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.  WT/DSB/M/289 
 Page 3 
 
 
  3. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 11 November 2010, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  As had been noted, a number of legislative proposals that would implem ent the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this 
dispute had been introduced in the First Session of the current (111th) Congress.  The Second Session of the 111th Congress had begun in January 2010.  Th e Committee on the Judiciary of the House of 
Representatives had held a hearing on certain of those proposals earlier in 2010.  In addition, the US 
administration was working with Congress to impl ement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in 
this dispute. 
4. The representative of the European Union
 noted that, at the present meeting, the United States 
was presenting yet another status report in this di spute.  The EU hoped that the US authorities would 
very soon take steps towards implementing the DSB's ruling and resolve this matter. 
5. The representative of Cuba  recalled that, at the October 2010 DSB meeting, in the context of 
one dispute, the United States had stated that  compliance with the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings was not an option but an obligation.  Thus, in the Section 211 dispute as well as in the other disputes currently on the DSB's Agenda, compliance w ith the DSB's ruling was also not an option.  
The US disregard for the system would not stop Cuba in its resolve to defend justice.  Cuba and many 
other Members would continue to call upon the United  States to respect the DSB's rulings, until the 
rule of law prevailed over a super-power's imperi al claims to hegemony.  The DSU provisions on 
prompt compliance were ineffective because one Member availed itself of the unwarranted right not to implement the DSB's ruling for eight years, thus ignoring the trade damage it was causing.  Cuba believed that the issue of compliance should be ex amined in the context of the DSU negotiations, 
which aimed at clarifying and improving the DSU pr ovisions.  Clear provisions had to be put into 
place in order to prevent the recurrence of non-complia nce situations.  The system must be able to 
prevent impunity on the part of non-complying parties, in particular if the interests of developing countries were affected.  Cuba would not rema in silent in the presence of one Member who 
proclaimed itself to be an advocate of intellectual property rights and, at the same time, it allowed the 
usurpation of renowned trade marks, such as the HAVANA CLUB trade mark, in its territory.  The 
United States was not above the rules of internatio nal law.  The United States had a moral duty to 
listen to the systemic concerns expressed by a number of Members and was under the obligation to 
comply with the international treaties to which it was party and to implement the decisions made by 
the international bodies.  On 26 October 2010, the international community, through an affirmative 
vote of 187 out of the 192 members of the UN General Assembly, had once again requested that the 
United States put an end to the economic, commercia l and financial blockade against Cuba.  His 
country was grateful, once again, for the unambiguo us expression of solidarity with, and support for, 
the rightful claims of the Cuban people.  Nonetheless,  Cuba deplored the cynical statement repeatedly 
made by the United States every month in the DSB.   This demonstrated the lack of political will on 
the part of the authorities of the world's largest econom y to comply with the rules of international law.  
Cuba called upon the parties to this dispute, and in  particular on the United States, to take urgent 
action to repeal Section 211, which was the only wa y to end this dispute in a satisfactory manner.  
6. The representative of Brazil
 said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report.  Brazil joined previous speakers who had expressed concerns about the lack of progress in 
implementation, as reported, once again, by the United States.  Brazil, therefore, urged the 
United States to bring its measures into conform ity with the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  
7. The representative of the Dominican Republic  said that his country thanked the United States 
for its status report.  The Dominican Republic emphasized the need for WTO Members to comply 
with the DSB's rulings.  A failure to do so woul d undermine the credibility of the multilateral trading 
system.  The Dominican Republic thanked the Unite d States for taking all the necessary measures in 
order to resolve this dispute. WT/DSB/M/289 
Page 4  
 
  8. The representative of India
 said that his country thanked the United States for its status report 
and its statement.  India noted with disappointment  that the US status report had not reported any 
further progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings pertaining to this 
dispute.  India, therefore, renewed its systemic c oncerns about the situation of non-compliance, as this 
undermined the credibility and confidence that Memb ers reposed in the dispute settlement system.  
India urged the United States to report on complianc e in this dispute without any further delay. 
9. The representative of China  said that her country thanked the United States for its status 
report.  However, China was disappointed that th e US status report was merely a repetition of 
previous status reports, and that there had been no compliance in this dispute after more than eight 
years since the adoption of the relevant Reports by the DSB.  China believed that this situation was 
not in line with the principle of prompt implementation stipulated in the DSU provisions, and that it 
was highly inappropriate for a developed-count ry Member to maintain such prolonged non-
compliance in the case that involved the interests of a developing-country Member.  China, therefore, strongly supported Cuba and urged the United States  to implement the DSB's rulings without further 
delay. 
10. The representative of Bolivia
 said that her country supported Cuba's statement.  Bolivia 
wished to reiterate its concern about the lack of progress in this dispute and said that this 
non-compliance would have a negative impact on the credibility of the multilateral trading system and 
the DSB.  Bolivia hoped that the United States would be able to implement the DSB's rulings and lift 
the restrictions imposed under Section 211.  
11. The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  said that her country fully 
supported Cuba on this matter.  Th e US status report was a repetition of its previous reports stating 
that "[t]he US Administration will continue to work  with the US Congress with respect to appropriate 
statutory measures that would resolve this matter" .  In Venezuela's view, this constituted "action 
without results".  The United States had been rep eating the same thing for more than eight years.  
Section 211 was not only in violation of the TRIPS Agreement but it was also inconsistent with the 
principles of national treatment and most-favoured-n ation treatment.  Furthermore, it harmed Cuba 
and undermined the credibility and effectiveness of the dispute settlement system.  Venezuela 
continued to wait for positive signals from the United States, which would bring the United States into 
compliance with the Appellate Body's ruling.  Boli via noted that the lack of compliance by certain 
Members weakened the multilateral trading system.  As had been done on many occasions, Venezuela 
called upon the United States to put an end to the economic, commercial and financial embargo policy 
imposed on Cuba and to comply with the DSB's recommendations. 
12. The representative of Viet Nam  said that her country wished to join previous speakers in 
urging the United States to comply with the DSB's ruling.  Viet Nam wished to underline that the 
prompt compliance with the DSB's ruling would en sure the effective functioning of the dispute 
settlement system.  
13. The representative of Argentina  said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report and wished to reiterate its concern about the lack of implemen tation in this dispute.  As had 
previously been mentioned by Argentina and othe r delegations, the lack of  implementation of the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings had consequen ces that went beyond the Section 211 dispute.  
Argentina, once again, called on the parties to the di spute, and in particular on the United States, to 
take the necessary steps to ensure  full implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings so 
that this matter could finally be removed from the DSB's Agenda.   
14. The representative of Mexico  said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report pertaining to this dispute.  Mexico urged th e parties to resolve this dispute through the legal 
remedies provided for under the DSU provisions.  It was Mexico's understanding that any Member  WT/DSB/M/289 
 Page 5 
 
 
  may initiate its own dispute if it considered that its benefits were being impaired or nullified.  Mexico 
noted that the discussion under item 1 of the DSB's Agenda could provide useful input for the ongoing discussions carried out in the context of the DSU negotiations.  
15. The representative of Ecuador
 said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report.  Ecuador supported Cuba and recalled that Article 21 of the DSU made specific reference to 
the prompt compliance with the DS B's recommendations and rulings, in  particular with regard to 
matters affecting the interests of developing countr ies.  Ecuador hoped that the United States would 
intensify its efforts to ensure immediate complian ce with the DSB's recommendations and rulings by 
repealing Section 211.  This dispute, which had last ed for more than eight years without compliance, 
highlighted the main shortcoming of the WTO dis pute settlement system.  In terms of compliance, 
there was an obvious unequivocal imbalance that affected and seriously prejudiced the rights and 
interests of small countries.   
16. The representative of Angola  said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report pertaining to the Section 211 dispute.  Angol a recalled that prompt compliance with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings was essential to ensure an  effective resolution of disputes to the benefit 
of all WTO Members.  In August 2001, the Pane l Report in this dispute had concluded that 
Section 211 was inconsistent w ith Article 42 of the TRIPS Agreement and, subsequently, the 
Appellate Body Report had confirmed that decision.  The Appellate Body had found that Section 211 
violated national treatment and the most-favoured-n ation principles under the TRIPS Agreement and 
the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industria l Property, and had requested the United States to 
bring this measure into conformity with its obligat ions under the TRIPS Agreement.  The delay in the 
implementation of the DSB's decision, despite the fa ct that the DSB had determined that Section 211 
was inconsistent with the WTO's rules and principl es, affected the dispute settlement system – the 
central element of the multilateral trading system – which provided security and predictability for all 
Members, and set a negative precedent for similar cases.  Angola believed th at concrete signs and 
action by the parties in this dispute would se nd a positive signal of respect for WTO rules. 
17. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(b) United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan:  
Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.96) 
18. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS184/ 15/Add.96, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the impl ementation of the DSB's recommendations in the 
case concerning US anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan. 
19. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 11 November 2010, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  As of November 2002, the US authorities had addressed the DSB's recommendations and rulings with 
respect to the calculation of anti-dumping margins in the hot-rolled steel anti-dumping duty 
investigation at issue in this dispute.  Details were provided in document WT/DS184/15/Add.3.  With 
respect to the DSB's recommendations and rulings that had not already been addressed by the US 
authorities, the US administration would work wi th the US Congress with respect to appropriate 
statutory measures that would resolve this matter. 
20. The representative of Japan
 said that his country thanked the United States for its statement 
and the most recent status report.  Japan took note  of the US report that the United States had taken 
certain measures to implement part of the DSB's recommendations in November 2002.  With respect 
to the remaining part of the DSB's recommendations, Japan was still waiting for statutory action to be taken by the United States.  Japan hoped that the Unit ed States would soon be in a position to report to WT/DSB/M/289 
Page 6  
 
  the DSB on more tangible progress.  Full and prompt implementation of the DSB's recommendations 
and rulings was "essential to the effective functi oning of the WTO and the maintenance of a proper 
balance of the rights and obligations of Members".
2  Japan called on the United States to fully 
implement the DSB's recommendations in this long-standing dispute without further delay. 
21. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(c) United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act:  Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/Add.71) 
22. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS160/ 24/Add.71, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the impl ementation of the DSB's recommendations in the 
case concerning Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act. 
23. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 11 November 2010, in accordan ce with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  The US 
administration would continue to confer with the EU, and to work closely with the US Congress, in 
order to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution of this matter. 
24. The representative of the European Union  said that his delegation had noted that the 
United States was reporting non-compliance.  The EU remained keen to work with the US authorities 
towards the complete resolution of this case. 
25. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(d) European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products:  
Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.34) 
26. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS291/ 37/Add.34, which contained the status 
report by the European Union on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in 
the case concerning its measures affecting the a pproval and marketing of biotech products. 
27. The representative of the European Union  said that, once again, his delegation noted that EU 
regulatory procedures on biotech prod ucts continued to work as foreseen in the legislation.  The 
number of GMOs authorized since the date of establishment of the Panel was thirty-four.  Progress had also been made on other applications for au thorization.  Recently, the European Food Safety 
Agency had delivered favourable opinions on two other GM events (GM MON 89034×1507×MON 
88017×59122 and MON 89034×1507×NK 603).  The EU hoped that the United States and the EU would continue their constructive technical dialogue  on which they had re-engaged on 20 July 2010.  
The EU hoped that this constructive approach, based  on dialogue, would allow the parties to leave 
litigation aside. 
28. The representative of the United States
 said that his country thanked the EU for its status 
report and its statement.  The United States rema ined concerned with the operation of the EU's 
regulatory system for biotech products.  At the October meeting of the DSB, the United States had 
expressed particular concerns with the progress on the applications for approval of three varieties of 
biotech maize.  Those applications had received favourable opinions from the EU's scientific food 
safety authority in May 2010.  Six months later, only one of those applications had even been 
considered by the EU's regulatory committee and none  of those applications had been allowed to 
                                                      
2 Article 3.3 of the DSU.  WT/DSB/M/289 
 Page 7 
 
 
  complete the approval process.  The United States looked forward to the EU making timely decisions 
on those applications, as well as on the dozens of other applications that were currently pending in the 
EU's regulatory system.   
29. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(e) United States – Measures relating to zeroing and sunset reviews:  Status report by 
the United States (WT/DS322/36/Add.14) 
30. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS322/ 36/Add.14, 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 measures relating to zeroing and sunset reviews. 
31. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 11 November 2010, in accordance w ith Article 21.6 of the DSU.  As noted in that 
status report, the United States had taken steps to  implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings 
in this dispute.  With respect to the outstanding issues, the United States would continue to consult 
with interested parties in order to address those issues. 
32. The representative of Japan  said that his country thanked the United States for its statement 
and its most recent status report.  The United States had stated in its status reports that it "will continue to consult with interested parties in orde r to address the findings contained in [the Appellate 
Body and the panel] reports" adopted by the DSB on 31 August 2009.  Japan took this statement as an expression of commitment by the United States to fully implement the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings.  Once again, Japan called on the United St ates to fulfil its commitment by taking immediate 
and concrete action so as to resolve this dispute. 
33. The representative of the European Union
 said that his delegation wished to reiterate its 
disappointment over the lack of progress by the United States on compliance with adverse rulings on zeroing in this dispute. 
34. The DSB took note
 of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(f) United States – Continued existence and appli cation of zeroing methodology:  Status report 
by the United States (WT/DS350/18/Add.11) 
35. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS350/ 18/Add.11, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the impl ementation of the DSB's recommendations in the 
case concerning the existence and application of zeroing methodology by the United States. 
36. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 11 November 2010, in accordance w ith Article 21.6 of the DSU.  As noted in that 
status report, the United States had taken steps to  implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings 
in this dispute.  With regard to the remaining i ssues, the United States would continue to consult with 
interested parties. 
37. The representative of the European Union  said that the EU's concerns about the US lack of 
implementation in this dispute were well known a nd were recorded in the minutes of past DSB 
meetings.  The EU remained disappointed that the United States continued to use zeroing in reviews 
which involved products and measures covered by this  dispute, as if nothing had happened.  The EU WT/DSB/M/289 
Page 8  
 
  hoped that its patience and trust had not been misp laced and continued to urge the United States to 
reconsider its Section 129 determina tion immediately and to implement. 
38. The DSB took note
 of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(g) United States – Laws, regul ations and methodology for calculating dumping margins 
("zeroing"):  Status report by the United States (WT/DS294/38/Add.5) 
39. The Chairman drew attention to document WT /DS294/38/Add.5, 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 laws, regulations and me thodology for calculating dumping margins. 
40. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 11 November 2010, in accordance w ith Article 21.6 of the DSU.  As noted in that 
status report, the United States had already taken a number of steps to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute.  Th e United States would continue to consult with 
interested parties with rega rd to the remaining issues. 
41. The representative of the European Union
 said that his delegation thanked the United States 
for its status report.  The EU welcomed US reassu rances that it was taking the necessary steps to bring 
itself into full compliance with the DSB's rulings  and recommendations on zeroing.  The EU hoped 
that the lengthy internal consultations would soon l ead to concrete results and that the imposition of 
sanctions in this dispute would not be necessary. 
42. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
2. United States – Continued Dumping and Subsid y Offset Act of 2000:  Implementation of 
the recommendations adopted by the DSB 
(a) Statements by the European Union and Japan 
43. The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
the European Union and Japan.  He then i nvited the respective representatives to speak. 
44. The representative of Japan  said that FY 2010 distributions under the CDSOA appeared to be 
underway.3  This showed that the CDSOA remained operational.  As US Customs and Border 
Protection had explained, "the distribution pr ocess will continue for an undetermined period".4  Japan 
urged the United States to stop the illegal distributions  and repeal the CDSOA, not just in form but in 
substance, so as to resolve this dispute once and fo r all.  According to Article 21.6 of the DSU, the 
United States was under obligation to provide the DSB with a status report pertaining to this dispute. 
45. The representative of the European Union  said that, as it had done many times before, the EU 
wished to ask the United States when it would e ffectively stop the transfer of anti-dumping and 
countervailing duties to the US industry, and hence,  put an end to the condemned measure.  The EU 
reiterated that the fact that the United States ha d stopped disbursing duties collected after a certain 
point in time did not achieve full compliance.  Ever y disbursement that still took place was clearly an 
                                                      
3  See US Customs and Border Protection's website at:  
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/priority_trade/add_cvd/cont_dump/cdsoa_10/  
4 See US Customs and Border Protections website at:  
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/priority_trade/add_cvd/cont_dump/cont_dump_faq.xml   WT/DSB/M/289 
 Page 9 
 
 
  act of non-compliance with the DSB's recommendations .  Once again, the EU renewed its call on the 
United States to abide by its clear obligation unde r Article 21.6 of the DSU and to submit status 
reports pertaining to this dispute. 
46. The representative of Brazil  said that his country thanked the EU and Japan for keeping this 
item on the DSB's Agenda.  As had been stated in  previous DSB meetings, Brazil was of the view 
that, until the United States ceased all disburseme nts made pursuant to the Byrd Amendment, non-
compliance in this dispute would persist and the i ssue would not be "resolved" within the meaning of 
Article 21.6 of the DSU.  Thus, Brazil urged the United States to resume the regular submission of 
status reports and to fully impl ement the DSB's recommendations. 
47. The representative of Canada  said that her country agreed with the EU and Japan that the 
Byrd Amendment remained subject  to the surveillance of the DS B until the United States ceased to 
administer it. 
48. The representative of India  said that his country thanked the EU and Japan for continuously 
bringing this issue before the DSB and fully shared their concerns.  The CDSOA remained 
operational, affecting the legitimate rights of ot her WTO Members.  India was concerned that non-
compliance by Members would lead to a lack of cr edibility of the WTO dispute settlement system.  
India, therefore, urged the United States to immediately cease its WTO-inconsistent disbursements and added that this dispute s hould continue to be under the surveillance of the DSB until full 
compliance was achieved.  
49. The representative of China
 said that her country thanked the EU and Japan for raising this 
matter at the DSB meeting.  China shared the conc erns expressed by previous speakers and joined 
them in urging the United States to fu lly comply with the DSB's rulings.  
50. The representative of Thailand  said that his country thanked Japan and the EU for continuing 
to bring this item before the DSB and supported the statements made by previous speakers.  Thailand 
continued to urge the United States to cease the disbursements, repeal the Byrd Amendment with 
immediate practical effect, and resume the submission  of status reports until such actions were taken 
and this matter was fully resolved. 
51. The representative of the United States  said that, as his country had explained at previous 
DSB meetings, the US President had signed the Defi cit Reduction Act into law on 8 February 2006.  
That Act included a provision repealing the Contin ued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000.  
Thus, the United States had taken all actions necessary to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in these disputes.  Furthermore, the Un ited States recalled that Members had acknowledged 
that the 2006 Deficit Reduction Act did not permit the distribution of duties collected on goods 
entered after 1 October 2007.  With respect to comments regarding further status reports, 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. 
52. The DSB took note
 of the statements. WT/DSB/M/289 
Page 10  
 
  3. Adoption of the 2010 draft Annual Report of the Dispute Settlement Body 
(WT/DSB/W/435 and Add.1) 
53. The Chairman
 said that, in pursuance of the procedures for an annual overview of WTO 
activities and for reporting under the WTO contained in document WT/L/105, he was submitting, for adoption, the draft text of the 2010 Annual Report of the DSB contained in document 
WT/DSB/W/435 and Add.1.  The Report covered th e work of the DSB since the previous annual 
report contained in document WT /DSB/49 and Add.1.  For practical purposes, the overview of the 
state of play of WTO disputes covering the period from 1 January 1995 to 31 October 2010, prepared 
by the Secretariat on its own responsibility, was included in the addendum to the Report.  He 
proposed that, after the adoption of the draft Annual Report at the present meeting, the Secretariat be 
authorized to update the Report, un der its own responsibility, in order to include actions taken by the 
DSB at the present meeting.  The updated Annual Report of the DSB would then be submitted for 
consideration by the General Council at its m eeting scheduled for 14 and 15 December 2010. 
54. The DSB took note
 of the statement and adopted  the draft Annual Report of the DSB 
contained in WT/DSB/W/435 and Add.1 on the unders tanding that it would be further updated by the 
Secretariat.5 
4. Proposed nomination for the indicative list of governmental and non-governmental 
panelists (WT/DSB/W/437) 
55. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DSB/W /437, which contained an additional 
name proposed for inclusion in the indicative list of governmental and non-governmental panelists, in 
accordance with Article 8.4 of the DSU.  He propo sed that the DSB approve the name contained in 
document WT/DSB/W/437. 
56. The DSB so agreed . 
__________  
                                                      
5 The Annual Report was subsequently circulated in document WT/DSB/51 and Add.1