RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DSB/M/293 
2 May 2011 
 (11-2234) 
Dispute Settlement Body 
24 February 2011  
 
 
 
MINUTES OF MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard  
on 24 February 2011  
 
Chairman:  Mr. Yonov Frederick Agah (Nigeria) 
 
  Prior to the adoption of the Agenda
, the item concerning the Panel Report in the case on:  
"Thailand – Customs and Fiscal Measures on Cigarettes from the Philippines" (DS371) was removed 
from the proposed Agenda following Thailand's decision to appeal the Report.     Subjects discussed
: Page  
 
1. Surveillance of implementation of recommendations adopted by the DSB.........................2  
(a) United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appr opriations Act of 1998:  Status report by 
the United States .............................................................................................................. ...........3 
(b) United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from 
Japan:  Status report by  the 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 
(e) United States – Measures relating to zeroing and sunset reviews:  Status report by 
the United States .............................................................................................................. ...........7 
(f) United States – Continued existence and a pplication of zeroing methodology:  Status 
report by the United States.................................................................................................... ......8 
(g) United States – Laws, regulations a nd methodology for calculating dumping margins 
("zeroing"):  Status repor t by the Unite d States........................................................................10 
(h) China – Measures affecting trading ri ghts and distribution services for certain 
publications and audiovisual entertainment products:  Status report by China ........................10 
2. United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000:  
Implementation of the recommenda tions adopted by the DSB ..........................................11  
(a) Statements by the European Union and Japan ..........................................................................11 
                                                      
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/293 
Page 2  
 
  3. European Communities
1 – Certain measures prohibiting the importation and 
marketing of seal products..................................................................................................... 12 
(a) Request for the establishmen t of a panel by Canada ................................................................12 
4. European Communities1 – Measures prohibiting the importation and marketing 
of seal products............................................................................................................... .........14  
(a) Request for the establishmen t of a panel by Canada ................................................................14 
5. China – Certain measures affectin g electronic payment services.......................................15  
(a) Request for the establishment of  a panel by the United States .................................................15 
6. China – Countervailing and anti-dumping duties on grain oriented flat-rolled 
electrical steel from the United States...................................................................................16  
(a) Request for the establishment of  a panel by the United States .................................................16 
7. United States – Use of zeroing in an ti-dumping measures involving products 
from Korea ..................................................................................................................... .........16  
(a) Report of the Panel........................................................................................................ ............16 
8. Proposed nominations for the indicative list of governmental and 
non-governmental panelists ...................................................................................................17  
9. Election of Chairperson........................................................................................................ ..17 
 
 
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.99) 
 (b) United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan:  
Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.99) 
 
(c) United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act:  Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/Add.74) 
 (d) European Communities – Measures affecting th e approval and marketing of biotech products:  
Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.37) 
 
(e) United States – Measures relating to zeroi ng and sunset reviews:  Status report by 
the United States (WT/DS322/36/Add.17) 
 (f) United States – Continued existence and app lication of zeroing methodology:  Status report 
by the United States (WT/DS350/18/Add.14) 
 
(g) United States – Laws, regulations a nd methodology for calculating dumping margins 
("zeroing"):  Status report by the United States (WT/DS294/38/Add.8) 
 (h) China – Measures affecting trading rights a nd distribution services for certain publications 
and audiovisual entertainment products:  Status report by China (WT/DS363/17/Add.1) 
 
 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  WT/DSB/M/293 
 Page 3 
 
 
  period of time and shall remain on the DSB's Agenda  until the issue was resolved.  He proposed that 
the eight 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.99) 
2. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS176/ 11/Add.99, 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 11 February 2011, 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 111th Congress.  The US administration would continue to work 
with Congress to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings. 
4. The representative of the European Union  said that the EU thanked the United States for its 
status report and noted that, at the present meeting, the United States was presenting yet another status report in this dispute.  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
 said that no progress had been made by the United States and the 
EU towards finding a solution to the Section 211 di spute, which had lasted as long as the Doha Round 
negotiations.  The passiveness and lack of progress to wards the implementation in this dispute were 
unacceptable and so was Section 211, which was inconsis tent with the rules of international law.  The 
United States did not even make any changes to its m onthly status reports.  Since this dispute was first 
considered by the DSB, Cuba and other Members had expressed their concerns and had warned about 
systemic implications resulting from the failure to re solve this dispute in a satisfactory manner.  The 
only explanation for the current situation was that  the United States lacked the will to resolve the 
matter, while the EU did not use pressure or take  appropriate measures against the United States, 
despite its capacity to do so.  Should this lack of  compliance continue, one of the WTO pillars could 
collapse despite Cuba's warning.  The disput e settlement system was ineffective and some 
improvements were urgently needed to preserve its cr edibility.  This was the on ly way to ensure that 
the system continued to serve as a useful tool for resolving trade disputes, which was available to all 
Members regardless of their size.  The United States was in breach of fundamental principles contained in the TRIPS Agreement and the DSU provisions.   
6. Cuba noted that the 2010 DSB Annual Re port, submitted to the General Council in 
December 2010, showed that out of the ten disputes  that were kept under the DSB's surveillance of 
implementation of recommendations six concerned the United States.  Those disputes had been on-
going for nine, ten and even 11 years.  Cuba, theref ore, wondered whether this was the proper way for 
the United States to show its commitment to the ru les-based multilateral trading system.  No country, 
however powerful, had the authority to place it self above the rules of international law and 
multilateral trade rules.  In Cuba's view, this dem onstrated a profound disrespect for the system.  Cuba 
requested that this dispute be resolved, without further delay, through the repeal of Section 211. 
7. The representative of Ecuador
 said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report but regretted that, once again, the United States had failed to indicate as to when it would implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings pertaini ng to this dispute.  In light of this and due 
to its systemic concerns, Ecuador fully supported the statement made by Cuba.  Article 21 of the DSU 
called for "prompt compliance" and stipulated that "particular attention shoul d be paid to matters 
affecting the interests of developing-country Member s".  In this dispute, the United States had failed 
to respect those provisions.  Ecuador regretted that , after a long period of time, no solution had been WT/DSB/M/293 
Page 4  
 
  found to this dispute which affected the interests of a developing-country Me mber.  Cuba was denied 
a recognized intellectual property right, and if it were  to file its own complain t on this matter, it would 
have to endure a long and costly litigation.  Ecua dor, once again, urged the United States to repeal 
Section 211.  Finally, Ecuador reiterated its requ est for more detailed and precise information from 
the EU on the steps that it had taken to resolve this dispute. 
8. The representative of China
 said that her country thanked the United States for its status 
report in this dispute and its statement made at th e present meeting.  China noted that this was the 
100th status report in this disput e, and regretted that the United States had, once again, reported non-
compliance.  Nine years had passed since the a doption of the DSB's reco mmendations and rulings 
pertaining to this dispute.  In China's view, this situation was not in line with the principle of prompt 
implementation stipulated in the DSU provisions and ra ised systemic concerns.  China considered that 
it was highly inappropriate for a de veloped-country Member to mainta in a WTO-inconsistent measure 
for such a long period of time, in particular since the interests of a developing-country Member were 
being affected.  China, therefore, strongly supp orted Cuba and urged the United States to implement 
the DSB's rulings without further delay.  
9. The representative of Argentina  said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report and supported the statement made by Cuba. 
10. The representative of Nicaragua  said that her country thanked the United States for its status 
report in this dispute.  Nicaragua regretted that the US status report confirmed the continued failure by 
the United States to implement th e DSB's recommendations and rulings.  Nicaragua hoped that the 
United States would continue to work towards taki ng the necessary steps to ensure that its measures 
were brought into line with the DSB's recommendati ons so as to rapidly resolve this long-standing 
dispute.  Nicaragua, once again, called on the United States to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings to ensure that the dispute settleme nt system continued to work effectively.  
11. The representative of Brazil
 said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report and noted that this was the one-hundredth  time that the United States had reported non-
compliance in the Section 211 dispute.  Brazil hoped that the United States would accelerate its efforts 
and bring its measures into compliance with its multilateral obligations without further delay. 
12. The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  said that, once again, his country 
supported Cuba's concern about the prolonged, embarrassing and unjustified non-compliance by the 
United States.  This lack of compliance not only high lighted the failure of the United States to meet its 
WTO commitments, it also undermined the credibility  of the dispute settlement system.  As Cuba 
recalled, nine years had passed since the expiry of the reasonable period of time for implementation in 
this dispute.  In Venezuela's view, this was a clear indication of inaction on the part of the 
United States and represented a serious violation of the TRIPS Agreement with trade implications for 
the Cuban Havana Rum industry.  Like previous sp eakers, Venezuela urged the United States to take 
concrete steps to repeal Section 211 in order to co mply with the DSB's ruling, which had been ignored 
by the United States for almost a decade. 
13. The representative of the Dominican Republic  said that her country thanked the United States 
for its most recent status report on its implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings regarding Section 211, which was inc onsistent with the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement.  In that 
respect, the Dominican Republic, once again, ur ged the United States to accelerate its domestic 
procedures in order to comply with the DSB's reco mmendations.  Given that a long period of time had 
elapsed, the Dominican Republic was concerned that  the US lack of implementation undermined the 
credibility of the dispute settlement system.  Once again, the Dominican Republic urged the United States to comply with the DSB's recommendations without further delay.   WT/DSB/M/293 
 Page 5 
 
 
  14. The representative of Mexico  said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report and urged the parties to resolve this dispute through the legal remedies provided for in the DSU 
provisions.  Mexico noted that if a dispute was not resolved, any Member that considered that its rights were being nullified or impaired could initiate  its own dispute.  Mexico also noted that the 
discussion under this Agenda item could provide u seful input for the ongoing discussions carried out 
in the context of the DSU negotiations, in particular w ith regard to the issue of effective compliance.   
15. The representative of Viet Nam
 said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report.  Viet Nam supported the statement made by Cuba and urged the United States to comply with the DSB's recommendations without further delay.  
16. The representative of Zimbabwe
 said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report.  Zimbabwe supported the statement made by  Cuba and called upon the United States to take 
the necessary steps to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings. 
17. The representative of Paraguay  said that her country wished to be associated with the 
statements made by Cuba and the previous speak ers who had expressed concerns about delays in 
complying with the DSB's recommendations and rulings  in this dispute.  Delays in implementation 
raised systemic concerns.  Paraguay, therefore, urged the United States to promptly comply with the 
DSB's recommendation and to repeal Section 211. 
18. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(b) United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan:  
Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.99) 
19. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS184/ 15/Add.99, 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. 
20. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 11 February 2011, in accordance with  Article 21.6 of the DSU.  As of November 2002, 
the US authorities had addressed the DSB's recommendations and rulings with respect to the 
calculation of anti-dumping margins in the hot-rolled steel anti-dumping duty inv estigation at issue in 
this dispute.  Details were provided in documen t WT/DS184/15/Add.3.  With respect to the DSB 
recommendations and rulings that had not already been addressed by the US authorities, the US 
administration would work with the US Congress with respect to appropriate statutory measures that would resolve this matter. 
21. The representative of Japan
 said that his country thanked the United States for its statement 
and its most recent status report.  Japan took note  of the US report that the United States had taken 
certain measures to implement part of the DSB' s recommendations in November 2002.  As for the 
remaining part of the DSB's recommendations, Japan  hoped that the United States would soon be in a 
position to report to the DSB on more tangible progr ess.  Full and prompt implementation of the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings was "essential to  the effective functioning of the WTO and the 
maintenance of a proper balance of th e 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. 
                                                     
 
2 Article 3.3 of the DSU. WT/DSB/M/293 
Page 6  
 
  22. The DSB took note
 of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(c) United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act:  Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/Add.74) 
23. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS160/ 24/Add.74, 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. 
24. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 11 February 2011, in accordance with  Article 21.6 of the DSU.  The US administration 
would continue to confer with the EU, and to work  closely with the US Congress, in order to reach a 
mutually satisfactory resolution of this matter. 
25. The representative of the European Union  said that the EU thanked the United States for its 
status report and noted that the United States was again reporting non-compliance.  The EU remained 
keen to work with the US authorities towa rds the complete resolution of this case. 
26. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(d) European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products:  
Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.37) 
27. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS291/ 37/Add.37, which contained the status 
report by the European Union on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in 
the case concerning the EU's measures affecting th e approval and marketing of biotech products. 
28. The representative of the European Union  said that, once again, the EU noted that its 
regulatory procedures on biotech prod ucts continued to work as foreseen in the legislation.  The 
number of GMOs authorized since the date of est ablishment of the Panel was thirty-four.  In 2010, 
11 applications had been authorized, more than  double the number of authorizations in 2009, 
including one authorization for cultivation.  Progr ess had also been made on other applications for 
authorization or renewal.  Draft decisions  on two applications (cotton GHB614, maize 
MON89034×MON88017) and a draft decision on the rene wal of a GM maize (1057) had been sent to 
the Council following the vote in the Standing Committee.  Four more draft applications had been voted in the Standing Committee in February  2011 (MIR604×GA21 maize, BT11×MIR604 maize, 
281-24-236/3006-210-23 cotton, Bt11×MIR604×GA21 ma ize).  The tentative agenda of the AGRI 
Council on 17 March 2011 included a vote on those authorizations.  Furthermore, the European Food 
Safety Agency had delivered a favourable opini on on the renewal of a GM soy bean (MON 
Ø4Ø32-6).  The EU hoped that the United States and the EU would continue their constructive technical dialogue on which they had re-engaged in July 2010.  The EU hoped that this constructive 
approach, based on dialogue, would allow the parties to leave litigation aside.  
29. The representative of the United States
 said that his country thanked the EU for its status 
report and its statement made at the present meet ing.  At the 25 January 2011 DSB meeting, the 
United States had noted that since July 2010, the EU had not approved any of the dozens of pending biotech product applications.  The United States had also noted that, in early February 2011, the EU regulatory committee with the responsibility for ap proving biotech products had been scheduled to 
meet to consider four biotech product applicati ons.  Each of those products had received positive 
safety assessments from the EU's ow n scientific authority.  The four products had included two 
varieties of maize grown in the United States.   The regulatory committee had met earlier in  WT/DSB/M/293 
 Page 7 
 
 
  February 2011 to consider the four products.  Ho wever, the committee had failed to approve any of 
those products, despite the positive scientific opini ons.  The United States understood that the 
majority of the EU member State representatives on the committee had been in favour of approval.  
However, and unfortunately, the number of votes had not been sufficient to reach the necessary "qualified majority" under the EU rules.  As a resu lt, those pending applications would face further 
delays in approval.  The United States emphasize d that such delays had real and substantial 
consequences in terms of blocking trade in biotech  products.  The United States looked forward to the 
EU taking steps to address the inaction by the re gulatory committee that had the responsibility for 
biotech products.   
30. The representative of the European Union
 said that the GMO regulatory regime was not the 
subject of the original Panel's findings and neith er its "operation" nor the status of specific 
applications not dealt with in the original  Panel was covered by this Agenda item. 
31. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(e) United States – Measures relating to zeroing and sunset reviews:  Status report by 
the United States (WT/DS322/36/Add.17) 
32. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS322/ 36/Add.17, 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. 
33. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 11 February 2011, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  As the United States 
had explained in its status report and at the Ja nuary 2011 DSB meeting, in December 2010 the US 
Department of Commerce had announced a proposal to change the calculation of weighted average 
dumping margins and assessment rates in certain an ti-dumping proceedings.  Details of the proposal 
had been published in the Federal Register.3  As had been explained in that notice, the proposal 
required a period for public comment, and would in volve consultations with  appropriate committees 
in the US Congress.  At this time, the US Depa rtment of Commerce was continuing with its ongoing 
work on the December proposal.  Given US concerns  about the findings regarding zeroing in this and 
other disputes, responding to those findings had presen ted substantial challenges for the United States 
and had required significant resources.  The propos al reflected that effort, and addressed adverse 
findings on zeroing in reviews, sunset reviews,  and transaction-to-transaction comparisons in 
investigations. 
34. The representative of Japan  said that his country thanked the United States for its statement 
and its most recent status report.  Japan took not e that the internal cons ultation process was underway, 
based on the proposal announced by the US Depart ment of Commerce on 28 December 2010.  While 
welcoming the development as a positive step forward,  Japan was carefully reviewing the proposal to 
see whether implementation of the proposal sufficed  to fully implement the DSB's recommendations 
and rulings.  Japan would welcome further clarifi cation from the United States on the questions it had 
raised.  Japan continued to seek prompt and full co mpliance by the United States with respect to all 
the measures at issue that were subject to the reco mmendations in this dispute.  Japan looked forward 
to a continued dialogue with the United States on th is matter and would continue to closely monitor 
any developments.  Japan reserved its right under the DSU to take appropriate action, if necessary. 
35. The representative of the United States  said that his country noted Japan's comments and 
would refer those comments to capital.  With r espect to the December 2010 US proposal, the 
                                                      
3 75 Federal Register 81533 (28 December 2010). WT/DSB/M/293 
Page 8  
 
  United States wished to reiterate that the propo sal was not final, and that the United States was 
reviewing the comments received.  The United States would also continue to work with interested 
parties, including Japan, on a solution to this di spute as it moved forward with what was a very 
challenging domestic implementation process. 
36. The DSB took note
 of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(f) United States – Continued existence and appli cation of zeroing methodology:  Status report 
by the United States (WT/DS350/18/Add.14) 
37. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS350/ 18/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 the existence and application of zeroing methodology by the United States. 
38. The representative of the United States  said that his country had addressed the issue of 
compliance with the findings in this dispute in th e status report provided on 11 February 2011, and 
earlier in the discussion under Agenda item 1(e) of the present meeting.  The United States, therefore, referred Members to that statement for further details. 
39. The representative of the European Union
 said that his delegation thanked the United States 
for its status report.  The EU said that it had commented on the US proposal of 28 December 2010 at the January 2011 DSB meeting and would refer Member s, and in particular the United States, to its 
statements made at that meeting for further deta ils.  The EU appreciated the efforts made by the 
United States in order to start its work towa rds compliance with the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings in zeroing disputes.  However, the EU wanted to be very clear that what had been put forward 
thus far by the United States was not enough to brin g about full compliance.  More specifically, with 
regard to the dispute under this Agenda item (D S350), the EU wanted the United States to state 
exactly which measures it had implem ented to date to bring itself into compliance.  Based on the most 
recent US status report,  it seemed that with the exception of Section 129(b) reviews for four final determinations (Final Determ ination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:  Purified 
Carboxymethylcellulose from Sweden;  Final Determin ation of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:  
Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from the Netherland s;  Final Determination of Sales at Less Than 
Fair Value:  Purified Carboxymethylcellulose from Fi nland;  and Final Determ ination of Sales at Less 
Than Fair Value:  Chlorinated Isocyanurates from Spain) no implementing measure was in place.  The proposal which would, "if successful"
4, hopefully address only a part of the other adverse findings on 
zeroing was not, at this stage, a measure taken to comply.   
40. The United States was asking the EU to be patient and appreciate the effort and resources it 
had to invest in putting forward its proposal of 28 December 2010.  The EU recalled that the already 
generous deadline for implementation in this disp ute had expired on 19 December 2009 (and on 
9 April 2007 for the DS294 dispute).  This showed  how patient and appreciative the EU had been.  
However, the United States was now also saying th at it did not consider it necessary to refund the 
duties it had continued to impose and collect since af ter the expiry of the reasonable period of time for 
compliance.  The EU disagreed with the United Stat es on this point.  The A ppellate Body had made it 
clear that compliance in the context of zeroing implied not only the cessation of zeroing in the assessment of duties, but also in consequent measure s that, in the ordinary course of the imposition of 
anti-dumping duties, derived mechanically from the asse ssment of duties.  Consequently, to the extent 
that a measure of this kind remained based on zeroi ng, the United States had failed to comply with the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings by applying that  measure after the end of the reasonable period 
of time.  While the EU did not dispute the fact th at the United States remained free to determine the 
                                                     
 
4 See the US second intervention at the DSB meeting of 25 January 2011 under Agenda item 1(e).  WT/DSB/M/293 
 Page 9 
 
 
  approach to take to bring itself into complian ce depending on its domestic procedures, the freedom 
did not go as far as allowing the United States to ignore the recommendations and ruling altogether.  The EU wished to remind the United States that the i ssue of excess duties paid after the expiry of the 
reasonable period of time was an issue because the United States had delayed implementation for so 
long.  The EU asked the United States to appreciat e the resources the EU had already invested into 
this matter and understand that in view of what th e United States had put forward thus far, the EU was 
understandably beginning to run out of patience.   
41. At the 25 January 2011 DSB meeting, the United States had referred to the Bananas dispute in 
suggesting that it was not required to refund excess du ties it had continued to collect contrary to its 
WTO obligations.  The EU noted that its appro ach in implementing the Bananas dispute was not 
relevant to this Agenda item, which dealt with a di fferent dispute (DS350).  The EU wished to briefly 
address the US intervention under Agenda item 1(e)  at the January 2011 DSB meeting.  At that 
meeting, the United States had noted that the pr oposal of 28 December 2010 "is subject to comment, 
including by WTO Members".  The EU wished to observe that, in accordance with the DSU 
provisions, the DSB kept under surveillance the implementation of adopt ed recommendations and 
rulings in WTO disputes.  The US proposal of 28 December 2010 was a proposal for a measure taken 
to comply.  Consequently, the EU had commented on it in the DSB and would continue to do so, as 
appropriate, in the future.  The EU did not find  it necessary to get involved in domestic decision-
making procedures, but trusted that the United St ates would duly take into account the comments 
made by the EU at the DSB meeting and would address them in its final proposal. 
42. The representative of China
 said that her country thanked the United States for its status 
report and its statement made at the present meeti ng.  China welcomed the positive steps taken by the 
United States towards the implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings pertaining to 
this dispute.  However, with regard to the end of the practice of zeroing in reviews that appeared in 
the Federal Register on 28 December 2010, Chin a wished to make two comments on the new 
procedure proposed by the US Department of Commerc e (USDOC).  First, with regard to the prior 
original anti-dumping investigations and reviews,  the USDOC should provide exporters with the 
opportunity to petition a revised dumping margin ca lculation.  This would require the USDOC to 
adopt guidelines for the transition period from the prior methodology to the revised methodology.  China believed that currently effective dumpi ng margins calculated using zeroing methodology 
should be eligible for revision to ensure fairness and to avoid prolonged a nd unnecessary litigations.   
43. Second, the United States should take this opport unity to clarify important issues concerning 
the use of targeted dumping and communicate its inte ntion to abide by clear international obligations 
and prohibit the use of zeroing methodology.  The USDOC proposal did not identify the issue of targeted dumping by name, but did clearly refer to it when explaining the proposed methodology.  Specifically, the USDOC had indicated that the revi sed methodology would be used in administrative 
reviews, "except where the department determines that application of a different comparison method 
is more appropriate".  In a series of recent orig inal investigations, the USDOC had taken the position 
that a finding of targeted dumping produced broad discretions for the dumping margin calculation, 
and the average-to-transaction comparison methodology used in the targeted dumping context incorporated the zeroing methodology.  China had se rious concerns about the appropriateness of this 
recently-developed practice.  China asked the Unit ed States to clarify how the USDOC used the 
targeted dumping methodology to calculate dumping margins, and why the zeroing methodology was 
necessary in connection with this a lternative method.  China looked forward to the clarification by the 
United States of its proposal in light of those comments. 
44. The representative of the United States
 said that a number of substantive issues had just been 
raised.  The United States looked forward to receiving those statemen ts and conveying those 
comments to capital.  At this point, the United St ates wished to react to two issues in the EU's 
statement.  First, the United States believed it underst ood the EU to say that the EU preferred to make WT/DSB/M/293 
Page 10  
 
  DSB statements on this matter rather than other communications.  Every WTO Member had the right 
to make a DSB statement:  there was no question abou t that.  But it was also clear that the resolution 
of a dispute, especially one as politically difficult  as this dispute, would only be found through 
sustained bilateral engagement, and not through DSB statements.  In that respect, the United States 
welcomed the bilateral contacts it had with several  Members seeking to discuss this issue and would 
welcome further constructive engagement by the EU on this matter.  Second, the United States took 
note of the EU's very brief reference to the Banan as dispute.  At the January 2011 DSB meeting, the 
United States had asked if the EU's assertions that all duties collected since the end of the reasonable 
period of time must be refunded meant that the EU had changed its positio n and whether it had, 
therefore, refunded duties in the Bananas dispute b ack to the end of the reasonable period of time in 
1999.  The EU had not addressed that issue at the present meeting.  That meant that one could 
reasonably infer that the EU had not changed its position and had not refunded those duties.  The 
United States appreciated the clarification, even if expressed very economically.  Finally, as stated 
under the previous Agenda sub-item, the United States would continue to work with interested parties, 
including the EU, on a solution to this dispute as it moved forward with what was a very challenging 
domestic implementation process. 
45. The representative of the European Union
 said that his delegation welcomed the US 
suggestion for a constructive bilatera l dialogue on this matter.  However,  the EU may have to revert to 
the US statement made at the present meeting at the next DSB meeting.  For the record, and in 
response to the US references to the Bananas dispute,  he said that no inferences in the legal sense 
should be drawn from the statement made by the EU at the present meeting. 
46. 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.8) 
47. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS294/ 38/Add.8, 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. 
48. The representative of the United States  said that his country had addressed the issue of 
compliance with the findings in this dispute in th e status report provided on 11 February 2011, and 
earlier in the discussion under Agenda items 1(e) a nd 1(f) of the present meeting.  The United States, 
therefore, referred Members to those statements for further details. 
49. The representative of the European Union  said that the EU thanked the United States for its 
status report and referred Members to its statemen ts under Agenda item 1(f) in which it had explained 
its concerns regarding the US proposal of 28 December 2010. 
50. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(h) China – Measures affecting trading rights and distribution services for certain publications 
and audiovisual entertainment products:  Status report by China (WT/DS363/17/Add.1) 
51. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS363/ 17/Add.1, which contained the status 
report by China on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in the case concerning China's measures affecting trading rights and distribution services for certain publications 
and audiovisual entertainment products.  WT/DSB/M/293 
 Page 11 
 
 
  52. The representative of China  said that her country was presenting its status report, in 
accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  On 19 January 2010, the DSB had adopted the Appellate 
Body Report and the Panel Report pertaining to th is dispute.  On 12 July 2010, China and the 
United States had informed the DSB that the r easonable period of time for implementation was 
14 months.  Accordingly, the reasonable period of  time would expire on 19 March 2011.  China 
wished to reiterate its intention to implement th e DSB's recommendations and rulings.  Following the 
DSB's adoption of the Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report, relevant Chinese agencies had 
begun to actively study various possible ways of im plementation.  Considering that this dispute 
concerned a number of Chinese administrative meas ures on cultural products and was embodied with 
more complexity and sensitivity than other disputes,  China was currently conducting an analysis on 
how to amend the relevant measures at issue.  Certain measures were in the process of being amended 
and draft revisions had been published for pu blic comments.  China would continue its 
implementation efforts in order to resolve this matter. 
53. The representative of the United States  said that his country thanked China for its status report 
and the statement made at the present meeting.   The United States looked forward to China's 
implementation of the DSB's recommendations and ru lings pertaining to this matter by the agreed 
deadline of 19 March 2011.  The United States unders tood that draft revisions had been published for 
certain of the measures at issue.  The United Stat es hoped that China would issue draft revisions for 
the remaining measures promptly in order to ensure  that the deadline for implementation was met.  
54. 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 
55. 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. 
56. The representative of Japan  said that FY 2010 Annual Disbursement Report published in 
December 20105 showed that the CDSOA remained opera tional.  As US Customs and Border 
Protection had explained, "the distribution pr ocess will continue for an undetermined period".6  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.  In accord ance with Article 21.6 of the DSU, the United States 
was under obligation to provide the DSB with a status report pertaining to this dispute. 
57. The representative of the European Union  said that, as it had been done many times before, 
the EU wished to ask the United States when it w ould effectively stop the transfer of anti-dumping 
and countervailing duties to the US industry and, he nce, put an end to the condemned measure.  The 
fact that the United States had stopped disbursing duti es collected after a certain period in time did not 
achieve full compliance.  Every disbursement that still took place was clearly an 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. 
                                                      
5 See US Customs and Border Protection's website at: 
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/tr ade/priority_trade/add_cvd/cont_dump/annual_report/ 
6 See US Customs and Border Protection's website at: 
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trad e/priority_trade/add_cvd/cont_dump/cont_dump_faq.xml WT/DSB/M/293 
Page 12  
 
  58. The representative of India
 said that his country thanked the EU and Japan for regularly 
bringing this issue before the DSB.  Non-complian ce by a Member raised serious concerns about the 
credibility of the dispute settlement system.  India urged the United States to immediately stop the WTO-inconsistent disbursements under the CDSOA.  This issue should continue to remain on the 
Agenda of the DSB until full compliance was achieved.   
59. The representative of Brazil
 said that his country thanked the EU and Japan for keeping this 
item on the Agenda of the DSB.  As at previous DSB meetings, Brazil urged the United States to stop making disbursements pursuant to the CDSOA in or der to comply with the DSB's recommendations 
and rulings.  In the absence of such action, this  dispute remained unresolved, and the United States 
was required to provide status reports pursuant to Article 21.6 of the DSU. 
60. The representative of Canada
 said that his country agreed with the EU and Japan that the 
Byrd Amendment remained subject to the DS B surveillance until the United States ceased to 
administer it. 
61. The representative of China  said that her country thanked the EU and Japan for placing this 
item on the Agenda of the present meeting.  Ch ina shared the concerns expressed by previous 
speakers and wished to join them in urging the Un ited States to fully comply with the DSB's rulings 
on this matter. 
62. The representative of Thailand  said that his country thanked the EU and Japan for continuing 
to bring this item before the DSB.  Thailand supp orted the statements made by previous speakers and 
urged the United States to fully comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings on this matter. 
63. The representative of the United States  said that, as his country had already explained at 
numerous previous DSB meetings, the US President had signed the Deficit Reduction Act into law on 
8 February 2006.  That Act included a provision  repealing the Continued Dumping and Subsidy 
Offset Act of 2000.  Thus, the United States had ta ken all actions necessary to implement the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in these disputes.  Furt hermore, the United States recalled that Members 
had acknowledged during previous DSB meetings that the 2006 Defi cit Reduction Act did not permit 
the distribution of duties collected on goods entered after 1 October 2007.  The United States, 
therefore, did not understand the purpose for which the EU and Japan had inscribed this item on the 
Agenda of the present meeting.  With respect to comments regarding further status reports on this 
matter, as the United States had al ready explained at previous DSB meetings, the United States failed 
to see what purpose would be served by further submissi on of status reports rep eating, again, that the 
United States had taken all actions  necessary to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in 
these disputes. 
64. The DSB took note  of the statements. 
3. European Communities – Certain measures prohibiting the importation and marketing 
of seal products 
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by Canada (WT/DS369/2) 
65. The Chairman  drew attention to the communicati on from Canada contained in document 
WT/DS369/2, and invited the repr esentative of Canada to speak. 
66. The representative of Canada  said that, at the present meeting, Canada was making two 
requests for the establishment of a panel.  The fi rst request concerned Belgian and Dutch measures 
that had entered into force on 28 April and 23 Oct ober 2007, respectively, and that prohibited the 
importation and the marketing of seal products.  The second request referred to an EU regulation that  WT/DSB/M/293 
 Page 13 
 
 
  had entered into force on 20 August 2010 to ban trad e in seal products.  While it may have been that 
the EU ban superseded the Belgian and the Dutch ba ns for the purposes of the application of EU law, 
Canada understood that, to date, the two national bans had not yet been repealed and therefore 
remained in effect.  This was why, at the presen t meeting, Canada proceeded with two separate panel 
requests.  Canada understood that, according to th e EU, the measures that were the subject of 
Canada's panel requests had been instituted in r esponse to concerns of its citizens and consumers 
about the animal welfare aspects of the seal harvest.  While Canada respected an individual's choice to 
support or oppose the seal harvest, and noted that several EU member States also allowed their 
citizens to participate in the hunting of seals, Canada also believed that  trade restrictions could not be 
justified by relying on myths and misinformation a nd encouraged people to form their opinions based 
on the facts.  Those facts were the following:  (i ) Canadian seal harvest was lawful, sustainable, 
humane, strictly regulated and guided by rigorous an imal welfare principles that were internationally 
recognized by virtually all independent observers;  (ii) the methods used by Canadian sealers and 
prescribed in Canada's Marine Mammal Regulations  were consistent with the recommendations of 
independent veterinarians and ma ny of the conclusions of the EU's own European Food Safety 
Authority report released in 2007;  (iii) the Cana dian government monitored the seal harvest closely, 
including ongoing aerial patrols, sophisticated vess el monitoring systems, at-sea and dockside vessel 
inspections, and regular inspections of processing fac ilities;  (iv) Canada took seriously its role as a 
steward of the environment and of wildlife and was committed to enforcing the seal harvest regulations to the fullest extent of the law;  (v) Ca nadian officials interacted regularly with the sealing 
industry to make sure that sealers fully understo od and carried out their obligations under licence 
conditions and regulations;  (vi) the Canadian seal harvest helped to provide thousands of jobs in 
Canada's remote coastal and northern communiti es where few economic opportunities existed;  and 
(vii) it had also been an important part of the Inuit way of life for centuries.  
67. Requesting the establishment of a panel was the la test step in Canada's lengthy engagement 
with the EU on this issue.  Ov er the past number of years, Canadian officials had made 
representations at all levels of the EU to express Canada's concerns with the potential impacts of these 
bans and to inform them of those facts.  Canada ha d also shared its concerns on multiple occasions at 
the WTO TBT Committee.  In response to the enactment of the first bans, Canada had held consultations with the EU, representing Belgiu m and the Netherlands, on 14 November 2007.  
Following those consultations, Canada had chosen to  delay pursuing that dispute further when it had 
become evident that an EU-wide ban on the trade in  seal products was being contemplated.  When the 
EU-wide ban had come into force on 20 November  2009, Canada had launched a separate dispute by 
requesting consultations with the EU on the new measure.  Those consultations had been held on 
15 December 2009.  On 17 August 2010, the EU ha d published an additional measure which had 
purported to set out, in a detailed manner, how th e exceptions to the ban on trade in seal products 
were going to be implemented.  As a result, Ca nada had requested suppl ementary consultations, 
which had been held on 1 December 2010.  Unfortunate ly, despite Canada's efforts to find a mutually 
agreeable solution, the matter had not been resolved. 
68. As outlined in its two separate letters, da ted 11 February 2011, to the DSB, Canada 
considered that the Belgian and Dutch measures and the EU measures were inconsistent with the EU's 
WTO obligations, including under the GATT 1994 and the TBT Agreement.  In accordance with 
those letters, Canada was requesting that two panels be established, w ith standard terms of reference, 
to examine the Belgian and Dutch measures prohi biting the importation and the marketing of seal 
products and to examine the EU measures restrict ing trade in seal products.  Canada noted that, 
although it had requested that two panels be establis hed, it hoped that the EU would agree to have the 
two panels joined once they had been established, so that the two disputes, which were closely related, 
could be heard by the same panelists.  Therefore, under this Agenda item, Canada was requesting the 
establishment of a panel pertaining to the DS369 di spute, with standards terms of reference. WT/DSB/M/293 
Page 14  
 
  69. The representative of the European Union
 said that the EU took note of Canada's request for 
the establishment of a panel.  The EU believed th at the measures were neither protectionist nor 
discriminatory and that they were fully in complia nce with WTO rules.  The EU stood ready to defend 
its measures.  The EU also noted that, as a matte r of EU law, the measures subject to the DS369 
dispute had to be internally compatible with the measures subject to the dispute under the next 
Agenda item pertaining to the DS400 dispute.  Therefore, and to the extent there would be any 
internal inconsistencies, the measures subject to the DS369 dispute may be amended or even repealed 
as the case may be.  However, the EU regretted that Canada, after the consultations held in the past 
few years, had requested the establishment of a panel at the present meeting.  At this stage, the EU 
opposed the establishment of a panel.  
70. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter. 
4. European Communities – Measures prohibitin g the importation and marketing of seal 
products 
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by Canada (WT/DS400/4) 
71. The Chairman  drew attention to the communicati on from Canada contained in document 
WT/DS400/4, and invited the repr esentative of Canada to speak. 
72. The representative of Canada  said that rather than repeating the explanation provided under 
the previous Agenda item, Canada asked that the r ecord of the meeting reflect the comments already 
made on this matter.  In addition, Canada wished  to comment on an exemption contained in the EU 
marketing ban.  The Regulation allowed seal produc ts to be placed on the market only where they 
resulted from hunts traditionally conducted by Inuit and other indigenous communities.  However, the 
Inuit themselves had made it clear that they strongly opposed the regulation.  Sealing had been and 
continued to be an important part of the Inuit wa y of life, demonstrating individual hunting skills and 
expressing cultural pride and identity.  In the 1980s, the EC had imposed a ban on certain seal 
products, which had virtually destroyed the mark et for seal products and had led to a loss of 
livelihood for Inuit who sold seal skins as a by-produc t of the subsistence hunt.  Interestingly, that ban 
had also contained a specific exemption for Inu it seal products.  While the market in Europe for 
Canadian seal products had eventually recovered so mewhat, the chilling effect of the various pieces of 
legislation currently in force had resulted in an ex treme decline in Canadian exports.  For example, 
exports of raw seal fur skins to the EU had fallen by 94 per cent in 2009 as compared to 2008.  Based 
on previous experience, there was every reason to believe that the EU's exemption for trade in 
traditional Inuit and Aboriginal seal products would, agai n, prove to be ineffective, particularly in the 
face of the collapse of the larger market, and the Inuit would, once again, suffer the effects.  The 
solution to this was the restoration of full market access.  Therefore, under this Agenda item, Canada 
was requesting the establishment of a Panel pertaining to the DS400 dispute, with standard terms of 
reference. 
73. The representative of the European Union  said that the EU wished to refer to its statement 
made under the previous Agenda item relating to th e DS369 dispute.  Therefore, the EU opposed the 
establishment of a panel at the present meeting. 
74. The representative of Norway  said that her country took note of Canada's request for the 
establishment of a panel in this long-standing di spute concerning the EU's measures prohibiting the 
importation and marketing of seal products.  The m easures had serious implications for Norway as 
well, which was why it had requested and had held  consultations, together  with Canada, on this 
matter.  This dispute was not just about seal products , but more importantly about a Member's right to 
harvest, in a sustainable manner, from its living marine resources and to market the products of 
hunting and fishing.  Norway considered that ther e were no justifiable grounds for the ban introduced  WT/DSB/M/293 
 Page 15 
 
 
  by the EU.  The seal populations were not threaten ed and Norway's hunt was strictly controlled and 
performed respecting the highest ethical standards.  Norway, therefore, sympathized with Canada's 
request for a panel and was considering the appropriate next steps. 
75. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter. 
5. China – Certain measures affecting electronic payment services 
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by the United States (WT/DS413/2) 
76. The Chairman  drew attention to the communication from the United States contained in 
document WT/DS413/2, and invited the representative of the United States to speak. 
77. The representative of the United States  said that, for several years, his country had been 
concerned about certain measures maintained by China affecting suppliers of electronic payment 
services.  Electronic payment services formed th e essential architecture for the many millions of 
payment card transactions that occurred every da y worldwide.  Those vital services enabled and 
managed the transfer of funds to permit cardholders  to pay merchants supplying goods and services.  
Hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of electronic payment transactions had been processed in China 
in 2010.  In the financial services sect or, as set out in China's services Schedule7, China undertook 
both market access and national treatment commitments  with respect to these services.  Members had 
every reason to expect to be able to compet e to provide these services to Chinese businesses and 
consumers.  However, despite its GATS commitmen ts, China imposed market access restrictions and 
requirements on service suppliers of other Members seeking to supply electronic payment services in China.  Many of those restrictions served to pr otect the monopoly position of a single Chinese entity, 
known as China UnionPay, and over time China's measur es had increased the restrictions on foreign 
suppliers.  The restrictions included, for example,  the following:  (i) China UnionPay was the only 
entity that China permitted to supply electronic payment services for payment card transactions 
denominated and paid in renminbi in China;  (ii)  China required that all payment cards issued in 
China capable of being used for transactions de nominated and paid in renminbi, including dual-
currency cards, must bear the China UnionPay l ogo;  (iii) China required that all inter-bank 
transactions involving payment cards be handled th rough China UnionPay;  and (iv) China prohibited 
the use of non-China UnionPay payment cards for cross-region or inter-bank transactions.   
78. The United States considered that these and ot her measures identified in its panel request 
were inconsistent with China's ob ligations under the GATS.  In par ticular, China's measures appeared 
to breach its obligation under Article XVI of th e GATS to accord services and services suppliers of 
any other Member treatment no less favourable than that provided for in China's Schedule.  
Furthermore, these measures also appeared to breach  China's obligations u nder Article XVII of the 
GATS to accord to services and service suppliers of any other Member treatment no less favourable 
than that it accorded to its own like services and service suppliers.  Accordingly, the United States 
requested that the DSB establish a panel to examin e the matter set out in its panel request, with 
standard terms of reference.  
79. The representative of China
 said that her country respected the US rights under the DSU 
provisions, however, it regretted that the United States requested the DSB to establish a panel to 
examine this dispute.  Contrary to what the Unite d States had stated, China had consistently observed 
the WTO rules and had positively implemented its commitments undertaken upon its accession to the 
WTO.  Following the US request for consultations, China had held sincere consultations with the 
United States and had positively responded to the US  questions.  Meanwhile, China noticed that the 
                                                      
7 Schedule of Specific Commitments on Services an nexed to the Protocol on the Accession of the 
People's Republic of China. WT/DSB/M/293 
Page 16  
 
  US panel request included measures which, China believed, were not listed in the request for 
consultations.  Considering that this dispute was still premature, China requested that the United States reconsider its panel request and did not agree to the establishment of a panel at the 
present meeting.  
80. The DSB took note
 of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter. 
6. China – Countervailing and anti-dumping duties on grain oriented flat-rolled electrical 
steel from the United States 
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by the United States (WT/DS414/2) 
81. The Chairman  drew attention to the communication from the United States contained in 
document WT/DS414/2, and invited the representative of the United States to speak. 
82. The representative of the United States  said that China had imposed anti-dumping and 
countervailing duties on grain-oriented electrica l steel, known by the acronym GOES, from the 
United States.  China's dumping and subsidy determ inations in the GOES investigation appeared to 
breach a number of its obligations under the GATT 1994, the Anti-dumping Agreement, and the 
Subsidies Agreement.  The apparent  inconsistencies were set out in detail in the US request for the 
establishment of a panel.  The US concerns related to  every phase of China's investigation.  In short, 
the United States believed that there were profound procedural and substantive deficiencies in the 
investigation, and these made the determinations unsustainable under WTO rules.  Accordingly, the 
United States requested that the DSB establish a pa nel to examine the matter set out in the US panel 
request, with standard terms of reference.  
83. The representative of China  said that her country regretted that the United Stated had decided 
to request the DSB to establish a panel to examine th is dispute.  During the investigations concerned, 
the Chinese investigating authority had effectivel y found that:  (i) the US product had been dumped 
into China and had benefited from US government's  subsidies;  and (ii) that the dumped and 
subsidized imports had caused material injury to the domestic industry of China.  As a result, China 
had imposed an anti-dumping measure and a count ervailing measure.  China regretted that the 
United States had proceeded with its panel request, regardless of the facts and explanations China had 
given during the consultations  and regardless of China's wish to r esolve this dispute through bilateral 
consultations.  China believed that its measures were  consistent with the WTO rules.  Furthermore, 
China wished to point out that the US panel request  contained claims which had not been listed in the 
request for consultations and had not been subject to  consultations.  China requested the United States 
to reconsider its panel request and did not agree to  the establishment of a panel at the present meeting. 
84. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter. 
7. United States – Use of zeroing in anti-dum ping measures involving products from Korea 
(a) Report of the Panel (WT/DS402/R) 
85. The Chairman  recalled that, at its meeting on 18 Ma y 2010, the DSB had established a panel 
to examine the complaint by Korea pertaining to this  matter.  The Report of the Panel, contained in 
document WT/DS402/R, had been circulated on 18 January 2011 as an unrestricted document and 
was before the DSB for adoption at the request of Korea.  The adoption procedure was without 
prejudice to the right of Members to express their views on the Report. 
86. The representative of Korea  said that his country thanked the Panel and the Secretariat for 
their work in resolving this matter.  In additio n, Korea wished to express its appreciation for the  WT/DSB/M/293 
 Page 17 
 
 
  constructive and positive efforts by the United Stat es and the third parties to communicate their 
positions, and to assist in focusing the issues before the Panel, in accordance with the DSU provisions.  
Korea welcomed the adoption of the Panel Report, which had found that the measures at issue were 
inconsistent with the first sentence of Article 2.4. 2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  Korea noted that 
the DSB had adopted recommendations and rulings findi ng the use of "zeroing" to be inconsistent 
with the Anti-Dumping Agreement on several occasions.  Korea further noted its long-standing 
concern about the use of the zeroing methodology in all stages of anti-dumping proceedings, and its consistent position that all forms of zeroing should be eliminated.  Korea looked forward to the US 
prompt implementation of the Panel's findings in this  dispute and would remain vigilant in monitoring 
the situation in the future. 
87. The representative of the United States
 said that his country also thanked the Panel and the 
Secretariat for their work on this dispute.  As th e United States had indicated in its statements on 
zeroing in the past, the US concerns with findings on the topic had been principally directed at those 
findings relating to zeroing outside the context of av erage-to-average comparisons in investigations.  
With regard to zeroing in the context of average- to-average comparisons in investigations, the US 
Department of Commerce had announced years ago th at it would discontinue zeroing in this context 
as a result of previous DSB recommendations and rulings. 
88. The representative of the European Union  said that the EU welcomed the Panel Report which 
had, once again, confirmed the WTO-inconsistency of US zeroing. 
89. The DSB took note  of the statements and adopted  the Panel Report contained in 
WT/DS402/R. 
8. Proposed nominations for the indicative list of governmental and non-governmental 
panelists (WT/DSB/W/443) 
90. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DSB /W/443, which contained additional 
names proposed for inclusion in the indicative lis t of governmental and non- governmental panelists, 
in accordance with Article 8.4 of the DSU.  He proposed that the DSB approve the names contained 
in document WT/DSB/W/443. 
91. The DSB so agreed . 
9. Election of Chairperson 
92. The outgoing Chairman  of the DSB said that he wished to thank Members for their support 
and cooperation over the past year.  He also wish ed to thank the Secretariat for its support and 
assistance provided to him in the course of the year and hoped that similar support would be provided 
to his successor.  He then recalled that, at its m eeting on 22 February 201 1, the General Council had 
taken note of the consensus on a slate of nam es for Chairpersons to a number of WTO bodies, 
including the DSB.  On the basis of the understa nding reached by the General Council, he proposed 
that the DSB elect by acclamation Ambassador Elin Østebø Johansen of Norway as Chairperson of the DSB. 
93. The DSB so agreed
. 
94. The incoming Chairperson  of the DSB thanked Members for electing her and said that she 
looked forward to working with them and with the Secretariat.  She thanked the outgoing Chairman 
for the efficient manner in which he had chaired the DSB meetings and wished him all the best in his 
new challenging role as the Chairman of the General Council.   WT/DSB/M/293 
Page 18  
 
  95. The representative of the United States
 said that his country wished to take this opportunity to 
congratulate Ambassador Johansen for her election,  and to extend its welcome to her as she assumed 
the Chairmanship of the DSB.  The United Stat es looked forward to working with her over the 
coming year.  The United States also thanked Amb assador Agah for his many contributions to the 
work of the DSB during the past year.  The United States looked forward to continuing to work with 
him in his new capacity as Chairman of the General Council. 
96. The representative of China  said that her country welcomed Ambassador Johansen in her new 
role as the Chairperson of the DSB and looked forw ard to working with her.  China also thanked 
Ambassador Agah for his work over the past y ear and appreciated the extensive experience and 
sincere commitment he had brought to the DSB.   China was confident that Ambassador Agah's 
qualities would contribute to the benefit of all Members in his new role as the Chairman of the 
General Council. 
97. The representative of Canada  said that his country also thanked Ambassador Agah for his 
Chairmanship and his stellar lead ership over the past year, and h oped that Ambassador Agah would 
carry that into the General Council.  Canada welc omed Ambassador Johansen as the Chairperson of 
the DSB. 
98. The representative of Brazil  said that his country thanked Ambassador Agah for having 
steered the DSB during the past year and wished him all the best in his new challenging role as 
Chairman of the General Council.  Brazil warm ly welcomed Ambassador  Johansen and looked 
forward to working with her. 
99. The representative of Cuba  said that his country welcomed the incoming Chairperson and 
looked forward to working constructively with her.  Cuba also thanked the outgoing Chairman for his 
work in the past year.   
100. The representative of Korea  said that his country thanked Ambassador Agah for his 
leadership as Chairman of the DSB in  the past year and wished him all the best in his new role.  Korea 
warmly welcomed Ambassador Johansen as the ne w Chairperson of the DSB and looked forward to 
working with her.   
101. The representative of the European Union  said that his delegation thanked Ambassador Agah 
for the very efficient manner of chairing the DSB mee tings and wished him all the best in his new role 
as the Chairman of the General Council.  The EU also welcomed Ambassador Johansen as the new 
Chairperson of the DSB. 
102. The representative of Japan  said that his country wished to join others in thanking 
Ambassador Agah for his leadership and guidance in the past year and wished him all the best in his 
next endeavour.  Japan also welcomed Ambassador  Johansen as the new Chairperson of the DSB and 
looked forward to working with her. 
103. The representative of Cameroon  said that his country congratulated and welcomed the 
incoming Chairperson.  Cameroon thanked Ambassador  Agah and wished him a ll the best in his new 
role as the Chairman of the General Council.  
104. The representative of Australia  said that her country welcomed the incoming Chairperson and 
thanked Ambassador Agah for his effective leadership  and wished him all the best in his new role as 
the Chairman of the General Council.   
105. The representative of the Dominican Republic  said that her country thanked 
Ambassador Agah for the excellent work carried out  in the past year and wished him every success in  WT/DSB/M/293 
 Page 19 
 
 
  his new role.  The Dominican Republic congratulat ed Ambassador Johansen on her new role as the 
Chairperson of the DSB.  
106. The representative of Chinese Taipei  said that his delegation th anked Ambassador Agah for 
having chaired the DSB over the past year, appreciat ed his efforts and dedication and wished him all 
the best in chairing the General Council.  Chinese Taipei welcomed Ambassa dor Johansen and looked 
forward to working with her.   
107. The DSB took note  of the statements.  
__________