RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DSB/M/234 
23 July 2007 
 (07-3132) 
Dispute Settlement Body 
20 June 2007  
 
 
  
MINUTES OF MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard
 
on 20 June 2007  
 
Chairman:  Mr. Bruce Gosper (Australia) 
 
 
Subjects discussed : Page  
 
1. Surveillance of implementation of recommendations adopted by the DSB.........................2  
(a) United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropr iations Act of 1998:  Status report by 
the United States .............................................................................................................. ...........2  
(b) United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from 
Japan:  Status report by  the United States...................................................................................5  
(c) United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act:  Status report by 
the United States .............................................................................................................. ...........6  
(d) United States – Laws, regulations and methodology for calculating dumping margins 
("Zeroing"):  Status repor t by the Unite d States .........................................................................6  
2. United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000:  
Implementation of the recommenda tions adopted by the DSB ............................................7  
(a) Statements by Canada, the Eur opean Communiti es and Japan...................................................7  
3. India – Additional and extra-additional duties on imports from the United States ...........9  
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by the United States ...................................................9  
4. Brazil – Anti-dumping measures on import s of certain resins from Argentina................10  
(a) Request for the establishment of  a panel by Argentina ............................................................10  
5. United States – Subsidies and other domestic support for corn and other 
agricultural products.......................................................................................................... ....11  
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by Canada ................................................................11  
6. Appointment of Appella te Body members............................................................................13  
7. Proposed nomination for the indicative list of governmental and 
non-governmental panelists ...................................................................................................14  
 WT/DSB/M/234 
Page 2  
 
  1. Surveillance of implementation of recommendations adopted by the DSB 
(a) United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropr iations Act of 1998:  Status report by the 
United States (WT/DS176/11/Add.55) 
 (b) United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan:  
Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.55) 
 (c) United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act:  Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/Add.30) 
 
(d) United States – Laws, regulations a nd methodology for calculating dumping margins 
("Zeroing"):  Status report by the United States (WT/DS294/20/Add.4) 
 1. The Chairman
 recalled that Article 21.6 of the DSU required that "unless the DSB decides 
otherwise, the issue of implementation of the re commendations or rulings shall be placed on the 
agenda of the DSB meeting after six months follo wing the date of establishment of the reasonable 
period of time pursuant to paragraph 3 and shall remain on the DSB's agenda until the issue is 
resolved".  He proposed that the four sub-items to which he had just referred be considered separately. 
(a) United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropria tions Act of 1998:  Status report by the 
United States (WT/DS176/11/Add.55) 
2. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS176/ 11/Add.55, 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 7 June 2007, in accordance with Artic le 21.6 of the DSU.  As noted in the status 
report, a number of legislative proposals that would implement the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings in this dispute had been introduced in th e current Congress, in both the US Senate and the US 
House of Representatives.  The US Administratio n continued to work with the US Congress to 
implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings. 
4. The representative of the European Communities  said that the EC had, on several occasions, 
expressed its opinion that the development of trade called for a parallel development in the level of 
protection of intellectual property rights linked to the goods that were traded.  In that respect, the 
conclusion of the TRIPS Agreement was a major achievement of the Uruguay Round negotiations.  
The United States strongly supported that achievement .  That made it rather incomprehensible why 
the United States was not complying  with the TRI PS Agreement.  The EC hoped that the present US 
Congress would realize that it was in the interest of the United States and of its industry as a whole to put an end to this situation, which had damaging effect on the authority of the TRIPS Agreement.  
The EC again urged the United States to comply with its obligations under the TRIPS Agreement. 
5. The representative of Cuba
 said that, once again, the DSB w as obliged to consider the non-
implementation of the recommendations relating to Section 211 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act 
of 1998.  The failure to comply with the recomme ndations and conclusions of the adjudicative bodies 
had become one of the major weaknesses of the di spute settlement mechanism.  The United States 
was responsible for the fact that the credibility of  the system had been called into question on account 
of its record of failing to comply with the DSB's recommendations.  This dispute brought to four the 
number of disputes awaiting implementation by th e United States: (i) US – Anti-dumping measures 
on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan;  (ii) US – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act;  and (iii) US – Laws, regulations and methodology  for calculating dumping margins (Zeroing).  The  WT/DSB/M/234 
 Page 3 
 
 
  United States even dared to take reprisals in the face of an adverse ruling by the DSB, avoiding its 
obligations through the withdrawal of commi tments assumed in previous negotiations. 
6. With regard to Section 211, that country was prepared to affect the US entrepreneurs who 
owed registered trademarks in Cuba, if Cuba d ecided to give them the same treatment as their 
government granted to Cuban trademarks.  The United States was violating its own intellectual 
property law by perpetuating provisions that enabled the Bacardí company to rid itself of its 
competitors.  Once again, Cuba called on the Unite d States to inform Members how and when it was 
going to comply with the recommendations of the DSB in this dispute.  Cuba would continue to press 
this matter, even though the US President had reitera ted through various channels his intention to veto 
any bill approved by the US Congress intended to ma ke more flexible or eliminate the unilateral 
illegal measures imposed by the United States on Cuba, including Section 211.  Cuba noted that the 
last deadline for implementation agreed between th e parties to the dispute had expired on 30 June 
2005, without any new date having been set for co mpliance with the DSB's rulings, thereby calling 
into question the effectiveness of the DSB.  On that  occasion, the parties to the dispute had notified an 
understanding on the non-application of the susp ension of concessions.  Thus, now there was no 
pressure on the Member in breach of its obligations to observe the principle of prompt compliance.  
That Member might now continue to fail to comply for an indefinite period of time with the consent 
of the DSB.  Cuba wished to have an explanation as to how this irregular s ituation could be reconciled 
with the letter of the DSU.  Cuba hoped that in  the course of the current negotiations it would be 
possible to remedy these deficiencies of the agr eed procedures.  Cuba recognized that the only 
solution to this dispute was the repeal of Section 211, and called on the United States to comply 
immediately with its obligations as a WTO Member.  
7. The representative of Brazil  said that his country wished to renew its systemic concerns about 
the situation of non-compliance in this dispute.  The DSB had adopted the Panel and the Appellate 
Body Reports pertaining to this dispute more than five years ago.  Despite this extremely long time-
period, way beyond the limits foreseen in Article 21.3 of the DSU, no implementing action had been 
taken.  Nor could WTO Members discern a clear sign in the US statements that such an action would 
be taken in the near future.  In no way could this situation be reconciled with the principle of prompt 
settlement of disputes.  Furthermore, a protract ed non-compliance situation by one of the major 
players in this organization clearly undermined the cr edibility of the system and altered the balance of 
rights and obligations.  Once again, Brazil urged the Un ited States to promptly take the requisite steps 
to bring the condemned measures into compliance. 
8. The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  said that his country wished to 
thank Cuba for its statement, which it fully suppor ted.  As his delegation had already stated, his 
country believed that Cuba's complaint was legitima te.  This matter had already been discussed many 
times in the DSB.  His country had also noted the status report submitted by the United States and continued to hope that effect w ould be given to the US assertion made at previous DSB meetings 
regarding the readiness of the United States to wo rk actively towards compliance with the DSB's 
rulings and recommendations in all pending disputes.  On the basis of that assertion, his country had 
hoped that the United States would submit a status re port, which would be different from the previous 
reports that had been submitted over a long period of time.  Unfortunately, that had not proved to be 
the case.  This demonstrated, once more, the conti nued indifference of the United States towards its 
WTO obligations.  Once again, his c ountry wished to draw attention to the risks associated with the 
continued failure of the United States to comply with the DSB's recommendations, not only for the 
WTO, but also for other Members as well as for th e credibility of the multilateral trading system.  
Situations such as the one under consideration cr eated uncertainty regard ing the effectiveness of 
future results of the Doha Round negotiations.  Ther efore, his country urged, once again, that the 
United States show the political will necessary to respect, once and for all, the DSB's rulings and 
bring about a solution to the dispute in question that would be mutually satisfactory to the interested 
parties and be within the scope of the WTO Agreements and its fundamental principles.  WT/DSB/M/234 
Page 4  
 
  9. The representative of India
 said that her country wished to thank the United States for the 
status report and the statement made at the present meeting.  However, based on the systemic issues, 
India remained concerned with the protracted im plementation process in this dispute.  The United 
States again could not report on any progress in the implementation of the DSB's rulings.  As mentioned several times, non-complia nce situations lacking proper so lutions undermined the carefully 
negotiated balance of rights and obligations of the whole Membership in the multilateral trading 
system. 
10. The representative of China
 said that, due to its systemic interests, his country once again 
wished to express its concerns on the protracted impl ementation process in this dispute.  First, China 
thanked the United States for its status report and its statement.  However, as other delegations had 
stated, five years had passed and the implementati on issue in this dispute was still under discussion in 
the DSB.  It was very regrettable that there w as no development as to when this matter would be 
resolved to the satisfaction of the parties to th e dispute and other WTO Members.  Besides, as one 
could see on the agenda of the present meeting, the Unites States was the only Member that had many disputes on the DSB agenda with pending implementati on.  The DSU more than once referred to the 
importance of prompt and full implementation of the DSB's rulings and recommendations, which was 
essential to ensure the effective resolution of disput es and to maintain the authority of the DSB.  
Although China was conscious of possible difficulties involved in implementation, undue delays in 
full implementation of the DSB's rulings inevitably cau sed systemic concerns about the efficiency of 
the dispute settlement system.  Therefore, China ag ain urged the United States to double its efforts to 
fully implement the decision of the DSB pertaining to this dispute. 
11. The representative of Nicaragua
 said that her delegation wished to thank the United States for 
the status report submitted at the present meeting.  Nicaragua had a systemic concern about the delay 
in complying with the Appellate Body's ruling in this  dispute.  Her delegation wished to reiterate that 
the failure to reach a prompt settlement which woul d be satisfactory to the parties involved continued 
to put at risk:  (i) the balance between the rights and obligations of WTO Members;  (ii) the 
legitimacy and efficiency of the dispute settlement process;  and (iii) the protection of intellectual 
property rights.  Nicaragua hoped that the US Congress would adopt the appropriate legislative measures in the near future so as to put an end to this situation. 
12. The representative of Thailand
 said that his country wished to thank the United States for its 
status report and the statement made at the present meeting.  Like previous speakers, his country 
wished to express its concern over the systemic impli cations of this dispute.  Non-implementation of 
the DSB's rulings and recommendations undermined the rules-based multilateral trading system.  
Thailand, therefore, called on the United States to ta ke the necessary and urgent steps to comply with 
its obligations under  the  TRIPS Agreement. 
13. The representative of Bolivia  said that her country wished to reiterate its concern regarding 
the status of this dispute and the indifference to wards WTO obligations.  Once again, no progress had 
been made to lift the restrictions under Section 211 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act.  The negative 
impact on the credibility of the multilateral trading system and the DSB disrupted the balance between 
the rights and obligations established under the WT O Agreements.  For the above reasons, Bolivia, 
once again, urged the United States to comply w ith the DSB's rulings and recommendations and to 
make a renewed effort to ensure that the US authorities remove the restrictions imposed under 
Section 211. 
14. The representative of Viet Nam  said that all Members knew that the dispute settlement 
mechanism was an important element that made the WTO different from, and more effective than, the 
GATT.  However, this advanced me chanism might not work if its ruli ngs were not fully respected and 
implemented.  Viet Nam's position regarding this  dispute had been expressed at the 22 May DSB  WT/DSB/M/234 
 Page 5 
 
 
  meeting, when together with other Members, Vi et Nam had requested that the United States 
implement the DSB's rulings and recommendations  in this dispute without further delay. 
15. The representative of the United States  said that, in response to the suggestion that the US 
compliance record was poor, the facts simply did not support that assertion.  Indeed, the record 
showed that the United States had fully complied in the vast majority of its disputes.  As for the 
remaining few, the United States was actively working towards compliance. 
16. The representative of Cuba  said that his delegation wished to comment on the intervention 
that had just been made.  As stated by one delegatio n, it was enough to take a look at the agenda of 
the present meeting as well as at the agendas of previous DSB meetings, to realize how many implementing cases were still pending.  The Section 211 dispute had been going on for more than five 
and a half years.  The reasonable period of time  for implementation had b een extended on numerous 
occasions and status reports, which were void of any content, had been repeated.  Members had been 
told that the US Administration was working with the US Congress and different legislations were being passed.  For many years now different US ad ministrations had worked with the representatives 
of their parties to stop the approval of bills whic h were consistent with the DSB's recommendations 
and rulings.  Once again, Cuba wished to ask that the United States comply with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings.  Impunity was not et ernal and patience was running out.  Cuba had 
respected the registration of many trade marks of the United States for some 50 years despite all the 
actions carried out by the United States with a lack  of respect for Cuban trade marks, but everything 
had a limit. 
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.55) 
18. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS184/ 15/Add.55, 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 7 June 2007, in  accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  As of 23 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 document WT/DS184/15/Add.3.  The US Administration 
would work with the US Congress with respect to the recommendations and rulings of the DSB that 
had not already been addressed by the US authorities by 23 November 2002. 
20. The representative of Japan
 said that the DSB had adopted the recommendations and rulings 
regarding this case in August 2001, almost six years ago.  However, the United States must still report 
on the status of its implementation of the DSB's r ecommendations and rulings.  In this regard, Japan 
noted the statement made by the United States along with its most recent status report in which the 
United States stated that the US administration was working with the ne w US Congress to pass 
specific legislative amendments that would implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  As his delegation had repeatedly stated before the DSB, Japan believed that a full and prompt implementation of the recommendations and rulings  of the DSB was essential for maintaining the 
credibility of the WTO dispute settlement system.  Ja pan wished to renew its strong hope that the US 
administration would accelerate its efforts to work wi th the US Congress in order to fully comply with 
the recommendations without further delay. WT/DSB/M/234 
Page 6  
 
  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.30) 
22. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS160/ 24/Add.30, 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 7 June 2007, in accordance with Ar ticle 21.6 of the DSU.  The US Administration 
would work closely with the US Congress and conti nue to confer with the EC, in order to reach a 
mutually satisfactory resolution of this matter.  In this regard, the United States appreciated the 
statement made by the EC at the 22 May 2007 DSB meeting that the United States was open to working with the United States to seek a mutually sa tisfactory solution to this dispute.  The United 
States shared the EC's goal of discussing how such a solution could be achieved. 
24. The representative of the European Communities
 said that the EC's position regarding this 
dispute was well known, the EC would like to see th e law made conform to the WTO obligations of 
the United States.  As already stressed in respect of  the Section 211 dispute,  a long period without 
concrete action to bring legislation into co mpliance undermined the authority of the TRIPS 
Agreement.  This damaged the interests of the whol e industry for the benefit of a limited group.  The 
EC remained prepared to work w ith the United States to seek a mutu ally satisfactory solution to this 
dispute and hoped that a solution could be identified in the near future. 
25. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(d) United States – Laws, regul ations and methodology for calculating dumping margins 
("Zeroing"):  Status report by the United States (WT/DS294/20/Add.4) 
26. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS294/ 20/Add.4, 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. 
27. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 7 June 2007, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  As previously stated, the US 
Department of Commerce continued to work to wards completion of a determination in one 
investigation in which the European respondent had alleged a clerical error which it had requested to 
be corrected, having completed impl ementation with respect to the other matters covered by this 
dispute.  In this connection, the United States not ed the EC's objection at the 22 May meeting that 
Commerce had not yet issued its determination in one  investigation.  However, as explained in its 
status report, the delays in that proceeding had been requested by the European respondent.  The 
United States wished to recall that Commerce wa s considering that respondent's clerical error 
allegation, even though it had been several years late and was not a subject of the WTO dispute.  If 
the EC had further concerns about the timing of th is proceeding, the United States suggested that the 
EC address those concerns to the European respondent. 
28. The representative of the European Communities  said that the EC wished to refer to its 
statement made at the April DSB meeting explaini ng in detail why the United States had not taken 
sufficient action to bring itself into compliance with  its WTO obligations.  In May 2007, the EC had 
mentioned that the United States had even worsened  the situation, by totally ignoring the 9 April  WT/DSB/M/234 
 Page 7 
 
 
  deadline and deciding that the re-determinations made in respect of part of the 15 original 
investigations condemned in this dispute would only  take effect as from 23 April 2007.  None of the 
shortcomings in the US actions had been addressed  and the EC was still waiting for revocation of the 
order on stainless steel sheet and strip from Italy, in  spite of clear evidence that the correction of an 
elementary arithmetical mistake woul d take the non-zeroed margin below de-minimis .  Should no 
satisfactory solution be brought to the outstanding i ssues, the EC would take the appropriate steps to 
protect its rights. 
29. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
2. United States – Continued Dumping and Subsid y Offset Act of 2000:  Implementation of 
the recommendations adopted by the DSB 
(a) Statements by Canada, the European Communities and Japan 
30. The Chairman  said that this item was on the agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
Canada, the European Communities and Japan.  He then invited the respective representatives to 
speak. 
31. The representative of Canada  said that while his country appreciated the steps the United 
States had taken towards implementing the rulings a nd recommendations in this dispute, the United 
States had only prospectively repealed the Byrd  Amendment.  Anti-dumping and countervailing 
duties collected up to 30 September 2007 could still be disbursed to US producers under the terms of 
this legislation.  As such, Canada believed that th e US claim – made in its last status report from over 
a year ago – that it had "taken the actions necess ary to implement the rulings and recommendations" 
in this dispute was not accurate.  Canada, ther efore, called on the United States to resume the 
submission of status reports and to repeal the Byrd Amendment. 
32. The representative of the European Communities  said that on 29 May 2007, the US 
Department of Homeland Security had published the noti ce of intent to distribute offset for fiscal year 
2007 in the Federal Register.  This was the first step in the administrative process that would 
ultimately result in a new distribution of the anti- dumping and countervailing duties in October 2007.  
The United States had to stop these distributions by 27 December 2003 to comply with its obligations 
under Articles 18.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement.  Therefore, the EC wished to ask again the United States if and what  steps it intended to take to stop the transfer of 
anti-dumping and countervailing duties to its industry.  The EC also renewed its call on the United 
States to abide by its clear obligation under Article 21.6 of the DSU and to submit its status reports on 
implementation in this dispute. 
33. The representative of Japan
 said that his country wished to join Canada and the EC by 
expressing its dismay at the recent announcement ma de by the United States to initiate yet another 
round of distribution process under the Continue d Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 
("CDSOA").  On 29 May 2007, the US Customs and Border Protection  ("USCBP") had issued a 
"notice of intent to distribute offset for Fiscal Year 2007".1  This notice provided "the case name and 
number ... for which funds may become available for di stribution" with the list of potentially eligible 
recipients.  It also "gives detailed instructions a nd requirement to be followed to ensure timely filing 
of claims"2 for distributions in accordance with the re gulations implementing the CDSOA.  Following 
                                                      
1 72 Federal Register at 29582 et seq. (dated 29 May 2007). 
2 See CBP News Release titled "Customs and Border  Protection starts 2007 Continued Dumping and 
Subsidy Offset Act cycle" dated 29 May 2007, available at: 
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/newsroom/news_releases/05292007_2.xm1. WT/DSB/M/234 
Page 8  
 
  this notification, the USCBP had also publis hed fiscal year 2007 preliminary CDSOA amounts 
available as of 30 April 2007.  Based on the data published by the USCBP, funds attributable to Japan 
which were preliminary available to US domestic industries for fiscal year 2007 would amount to some US$38.6 million.  Japan's past experiences with  the CDSOA showed that the final amounts that 
would be eventually distributed were likely to be  substantially higher than these preliminary figures.  
The notice and announcement showed that the CDS OA had been repealed only in form, but was still 
in force and fully operational.  In fact, the USCBP stated in this newly published notice that this 
document was the "notice of intent" to distribute the offset for Fiscal Year 2007 "[p]ursuant to the 
Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000".  Interestingly, there appeared to be no mention 
to the repeal of the CDSOA in this  notice.  In Japan's view, these latest actions by the US authorities 
testified against the repeated US assertion that it had taken all necessary steps for implementation in 
this case.  Instead, they rendered further support to the view that the United States still failed to fully 
implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this case. 
34. Japan, once again, urged the United States to  take the necessary steps to immediately 
terminate the illegal distribution and repeal the CDSOA not just in form, but also in substance.  Until 
then, Japan considered that the US compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings was 
incomplete and the issue of implementation in th is dispute must be under surveillance by the DSB 
pursuant to Article 21.6 of the DSU.  In this c onnection, Japan reiterated that the United States was 
under obligation to provide the DSB with a status re port pursuant to Article 21.6 of the DSU.  The 
United States maintained that no "purpose would be  served by further submission of status reports 
repeating the progress the United States made".  The United States appeared to assume that there was 
no progress it could make anymore.  However, as Jap an suggested, the United States could and should 
make further progress in the implementation in this dispute that could and should be reported to the 
DSB.  Japan reserved all its rights under the DS U until the United States ca me into full compliance 
with the DSB's recommendations. 
35. The representative of Brazil
 said that his country thanked Canada, the EC and Japan for 
raising this issue at the present meeting.  Brazil shar ed their concerns.  It also supported their request 
that the United States explain how full compliance ha d been achieved in this case with the prospective 
repeal of the Byrd Amendment.  In this respect, Brazil noted that, as had just been noted by the EC 
and Japan, on 29 May 2007 – i.e. more than thr ee years after the deadline for the United States to 
cease all disbursements under the CDSOA – the US Customs and Border Protection had announced 
its intention to distribute, yet again, funds under this illegal measure.3  In light of these circumstances, 
to simply repeat that Members had an option to challenge this situation under the DSU, giving no 
further explanation, was clearly not an appropriate reaction from a responding party that truly believed that its implementing measure delivered full compliance.  Finally, Brazil reiterated that WTO 
Members should not be deprived of any rights under the DSU in relation to this dispute. 
36. The representative of India
 said that, first, her country wished to thank Canada, the EC and 
Japan for bringing this issue before the DSB once ag ain.  As mentioned at previous DSB meetings, 
India remained concerned about US conti nued illegal disbursement of anti-dumping and 
countervailing duties to its Industry.  India also wi shed to express its concern about the United States' 
continued lack of status reports in this dispute.  India, therefore, urged the United States to inform the 
DSB of the steps it proposed, to ensure full complianc e and reiterated its request that the United States 
resume submitting status reports. 
37. The representative of Thailand  said that his country wished to join previous speakers in 
thanking Canada, the EC, and Japan for bringing th is item before the DSB once more.  As noted in 
previous DSB meetings, Thailand remained disap pointed at the United States' continued illegal 
disbursement of funds under the CDSOA, includi ng the recent administrative steps taken by the 
                                                      
3 http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/newsroom/news_releases/05292007_2.xml.  WT/DSB/M/234 
 Page 9 
 
 
  United States to continue further disbursements.  Thailand also remained disappointed at the United 
States' continued lack of status reports on its outst anding implementation in this dispute.  Therefore, 
Thailand again urged the United States to cease its WT O-inconsistent disbursements, to repeal the 
Byrd Amendment with immediate practical effect, and to resume providing status reports until such 
actions were taken and this ma tter had been fully resolved. 
38. The representative of China  said that his country, once again,  thanked and s upported Canada, 
the EC and Japan for raising this item at the DSB meeting.  China appreciated the efforts of the 
United States to implement the DSB's rulings and recommendations in this dispute and welcomed the 
repeal of CDSOA.  However, China shared the sa me view expressed by previous speakers that the 
implementation issue had not been resolved in this dispute within the framework of Article 21 of the 
DSU.  It was the obligation of a Member to fu lly and promptly implement the DSB's rulings and 
recommendations, which was critically important to the credibility and efficiency of the dispute 
settlement system.  Therefore, Chin a wished to join previous speaker s in urging the United States to 
comply fully with the DSB's rulings. 
39. The representative of the United States  said that as his country had explained at 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 Du mping 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.  With resp ect to comments regarding further status reports in this matter, as 
his delegation had already explained, the United St ates had taken all steps necessary to implement the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings in these disput es.  Those Members who had inscribed this item 
on the agenda of the present meeting were, of course,  free to do so, but the United States failed to see 
what purpose would be served by further submissi on of status reports repeating the progress the 
United States had made in the implementati on of the DSB's recommendations and rulings. 
40. The DSB took note
 of the statements. 
3. India – Additional and extra-additional duties on imports from the United States 
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by the United States (WT/DS360/5) 
41. The Chairman  recalled that the DSB had considered th is matter at its meeting on 4 June 2007 
and had agreed to revert to it.  He drew at tention to the communication from the United States 
contained in document WT/DS360/5, and invited the representative of the United States to speak. 
42. The representative of the United States  said that as his delegation had explained at the 4 June 
DSB meeting, the United States was concerned about  an additional duty and an extra additional duty 
that India imposed on imports from the United States, in particular on wine a nd distilled spirits.  The 
United States believed that these duties, individually and in combination, subjected imports of the 
United States to ordinary customs duties or other duties or charges in excess of those in India's WTO 
Tariff Schedule in breach of Article II:1(a) and (b) of the GATT 1994.  Accordingly, the United States 
requested that the DSB establish a panel pursuant to  Article 6 of the DSU, with standard terms of 
reference, to examine the matters set forth in the US panel request.  As the United States had also 
noted at the 4 June DSB meeting, the DSB had established a panel on 24 April 2007 to consider the 
EC's claims relating to the additional duty and extra additional duty.  The United States would note 
that in this situation, Article 9.3 of the DSU provide d that, to the greatest exte nt possible, the panelists 
in the US and EC disputes shall be the same and the time-table for the two disputes shall be 
harmonized. 
43. The representative of India  said that her country remained disappointed that the United States 
had chosen to pursue the matter further by requestin g the establishment of a panel.  As mentioned in WT/DSB/M/234 
Page 10  
 
  India's previous statement, both India and the United States had had constructive and fruitful 
consultations in Geneva.  Both parties had agreed to work towards a mutually acceptable solution, and 
India still believed that the parties were headed in th at direction.  India was confident that the panel 
would find that the measures were consistent with  India's WTO obligations.  While India understood 
that a panel would be established at the present meeti ng, it continued to consider that the US request 
was premature.  Finally, regarding the US request th at the panelists in the US dispute and the recently 
established panel to consider the EC's claims with respect to importation and sale of wines and spirits 
from the EC could be the same, India was considering the appropriateness of the US request for appointing the same panelists and seeking harmonization of the time-table.  India would revert to this 
matter separately. 
44. The representative of the European Communities
 said that his delegation wished to signal that 
the EC would be prepared to go along the avenue pr ovided for in Article 9 of the DSU and have the 
panelists, which were about to be appointed by the Director-General, in the EC's case against India, 
also serve on the panel requested by the United St ates as well as to have a harmonized time-table. 
45. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to establish a panel in accordance with the 
provisions of Article 6 of the DSU w ith standard terms of reference. 
46. The representatives of Australia , Chile , the European Communities , Japan  and Viet Nam  
reserved their third-party rights to pa rticipate in the Panel's proceedings. 
4. Brazil – Anti-dumping measures on imports of certain resins from Argentina 
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by Argentina (WT/DS355/2) 
47. The Chairman  drew attention to the communication from Argentina contained in document 
WT/DS355/2, and invited the representative of Argentina to speak. 
48. The representative of Argentina  said that his country regretted that it had to call the DSB's 
attention to the dispute arising from the anti-dumpi ng measures imposed by Brazil on the imports of 
certain resins from Argentina.  However, the issue with regard to which Argentina was requesting the 
establishment of a panel was long-standing and gave  rise to serious concerns on the part of his 
country.  He recalled that in August 2005 Brazil had decided to impose an anti-dumping duty of over 
US$340 per tonne on the imports of PET resins from Argentina.  Argentina considered that in 
establishing such duties, Brazil had acted in a manner in consistent with Articles 2, 3, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 
Annex II of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI of the GATT 1994, as set out in detail in Argentina's request for the establishment of a panel (WT/DS355/2).  Argentina also viewed with concern the fact that certain aspects of the Brazilia n legislation regulating the powers of the Brazilian 
authority responsible for imposing the anti-dumping duties were inconsistent with Articles 10 and 18 
of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, Article X of the GATT 1994 and Article XVI of the WTO 
Agreement. 
49. Argentina and Brazil had attempted to reach a b ilateral settlement to this dispute.  In the 
course of 2006 and 2007 several bila teral meetings had taken place bot h in Argentina and in Brazil. 
During those meetings various options had been co nsidered.  However, it had proved impossible to 
reach a settlement to the dispute in question.  In  view of the lack of substantive progress, on 
26 December 2006 Argentina had requested consu ltations with Brazil under Article 4 of the DSU 
(WTDS355/1), with a view to resolving the issu e in a manner satisfactory to both parties.  
Regrettably, at the consultations  held on 1 February 2007 in Br asilia, it had proved impossible to 
reach an amicable solution. Consequently, Arge ntina had no other option than to request the 
establishment of a panel in accordance with Artic le XXIII of the GATT 1994, Articles 4.7 and 6 of 
the DSU and Article 17.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.   WT/DSB/M/234 
 Page 11 
 
 
  50. The representative of Brazil  said that his country regretted that Argentina had taken the 
decision to request the establishment of a panel.  Br azil had been working with Argentina in an effort 
to resolve this matter, and considered that good progress had been made in the consultations.  
Furthermore, fruitful discussions with stakeholders  to resolve the dispute occurred as recently as in 
the past week.  In light of this ongoing effort, Brazil believed that Argentina's decision to abandon 
consultations, and to request the establishment of a panel was premature.  As a result, Brazil was not 
in a position to agree to the establishment of a panel at this time.  Brazil continued to believe that the 
matter could be resolved without further recourse to the dispute settlement procedures.  However, 
should Argentina pursue this matter further, Brazil w as confident that a panel would find that the anti-
dumping measures at issue fully complied with Brazil's WTO obligations. 
51. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter. 
5. United States – Subsidies and other domestic  support for corn and other agricultural 
products 
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by Canada (WT/DS357/11) 
52. The Chairman  drew attention to the communicati on from Canada contained in document 
WT/DS357/11, and invited the representative of Canada to speak. 
53. The representative of Canada  said that her country strongly supported WTO Members' shared 
commitment to establish fair and market-oriented, world agricultural markets.  This was why Canada 
continued to work with other WTO Members to ach ieve an ambitious outcome on agriculture as part 
of the Doha Round negotiations.  At the same time , Canada must ensure that WTO Members were 
meeting their WTO commitments under the current  Agreement on Agriculture.  As outlined in 
Canada's request, dated 7 June 2007,  Canada believed that the United States had been providing trade-
distorting agriculture subsidies inconsistent with  US WTO commitments.  More specifically, it was 
Canada's view that:  (i) the US's Current Tota l Aggregate Measurement of Support had exceeded its 
commitment levels in each of 1999, 2000, 2001, 2 002, 2004 and 2005, contrary to the Agreement on 
Agriculture.  Canada estimated that during th ese years the United States had exceeded its WTO 
commitment levels by billions of dollars each y ear.  The measures at issue include a broad scope of 
US agriculture subsidy programs, such as Direct  Payments, Counter-Cyclical Payments and Loan 
Deficiency Payments, which provide subsidies to a wi de range of agricultural products, and;  (ii) the 
United States provided export credit guarantees th rough the General Sales Manager 102 program that 
were inconsistent with the SCM Agreement and the Agreement on Agriculture.  Canada and the 
United States had held consultations on these matte rs in February 2007.  However, because the 
consultations had not produced a r esolution of these matters, Canada was now requesting that a panel 
be established to examine this issue. 
54. The representative of the United States  said that his country was disappointed that Canada 
had chosen to move forward with a request for pane l establishment at this time.  On the one hand, the 
United States noted that Canada was not pursuing its claim that US domestic support had distorted 
trade in corn.  Notwithstanding Canada's mistaken be lief that apparently nearly all US farm programs 
distorted trade, corn prices were not depressed or s uppressed, but rather were at record highs.  Both 
the Canadian International Trade Tribunal and, most  recently, the Canadian Federal Court of Appeal 
had rejected claims by Canada's corn producers a lleging injury from US corn imports.  These facts 
appeared to have been enough for Canada to set asi de its claim that US farm programs had distorted 
trade by suppressing corn prices.  Unfortunately, Ca nada had not taken an eq ually sober look at its 
other claims.  Canada had alleged that the Unite d States had exceeded its domestic support reduction 
commitments.  The United States rejected that clai m.  The United States carefully crafted its farm 
programs to support US farmers within the negotia ted WTO limits on spending.  The United States WT/DSB/M/234 
Page 12  
 
  had provided support within those limits, and, ther efore, consistently with its WTO obligations.  
Should this dispute move forward, the United St ates would vigorously defend its farm programs. 
55. Canada had also advanced claims on GSM- 102, a US export credit guarantee program for 
agricultural products.  This program had been revi sed in response to the DSB's recommendations in 
the Cotton dispute.  As the United States had e xplained in the Article 21.5 compliance proceeding 
currently underway in that dispute, this program fully complied with US WTO obligations.  In fact, 
far from providing an export subsidy as alleged by Canada, the program provided a profit to the US 
Government, amounting to hundreds of millions of do llars over the long-term.  The United States 
shared the objectives for the WTO agriculture negotiations agreed upon at Doha and reaffirmed at 
Hong Kong:  i.e., substantial improvements in agri cultural market access, elimination of agricultural 
export subsidies, and substantial reductions in trade-distorting domestic support.  The United States 
hoped that Canada shared these objectives as well.  But the United States rejected Canada's assertions 
in this dispute, for example, that nearly every US farm program was trade-distorting.  There was 
absolutely no basis to t hose claims.  Both Canada and the United States would better spend their 
efforts ensuring that the negotiati ons successfully increase farm trade, to provide a real boost to 
farmers and consumers worldwide. 
56. Finally, the United States also had concerns about the way in which Canada had framed its 
panel request.  For example, the panel request im permissibly listed measures that had not been the 
subject of consultations.  In other cases, it was impossible to tell what measures Canada was seeking to challenge.  And some of Canada's claims pertaine d to measures that had ceased to exist, in some 
cases more than five years ago.  For all the preced ing reasons, the United States did not agree to the 
establishment of a panel. 
57. The representative of Brazil
 said that, without prejudice to any statement that his delegation 
might make in future should Ca nada move forward with its pane l request, Brazil wished to put on 
record, since references had been made to the Cotto n dispute, that it had a very different view from 
the US view on the consistency of the GSM-102, th e revised version of the GSM-102 export credit 
guarantees and its programme with the US obliga tions under the Agreement on Agriculture and the 
SCM Agreement. 
58. The representative of Argentina  said that his country had followed, with great interest, the 
developments regarding this matter, and had, ther efore, asked to be joined in the consultations 
requested by Canada with the United States pertaini ng to this dispute.  Consequently, Argentina had 
participated in the meeting that had been held to  that effect at the beginning of February 2007.  
Argentina had a systemic interest in this matter, which was shared by other Members, as well as a 
commercial interest.  This had been demonstrated  in Argentina's request to be joined in the 
consultations and in the letter of acceptance of its request by the United States.  Thus, Argentina 
deeply regretted the fact that to date the United States had not reconsidered its position regarding the 
implementation of the levels of its  domestic support and export subs idies relating to the agricultural 
products that were the outcome of arduous nego tiations in the course of the Uruguay Round, and 
which were part of the commitments accepted under its Schedule of Concessions.  A failure to meet 
its obligations had been highlighted in Canada's  detailed and exhaustive co mplaint regarding this 
matter, which his country shared and supported.  In  this connection, Argentina wished to emphasize 
that the disregard by the United States of its co mmitments had a direct impact on the international 
markets, and in particular on developing-countries mark ets.  It also caused serious concerns due to the 
lack of transparency and correct identification of the measures that the United States had notified, not 
to mention the significant delay by that country in notifying such measures.  In this regard, Argentina 
noted that the last notification relating to commi tments on export subsidies covered the year 2002 and 
on domestic support covered the years 2000 and 2001.  Accordingly, Argentina supported Canada's 
complaint and said that it was considering to particip ate as a third party in the Panel's proceedings.    WT/DSB/M/234 
 Page 13 
 
 
  59. The representative of Nicaragua  said that, like Argentina, due to Nicaragua's commercial 
interest in this dispute, her country supported th e statement made by Canada, and wished to indicate 
its third-party interest in this dispute. 
60. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter. 
6. Appointment of Appellate Body members 
61. The Chairman  said that, under this agenda item, as he  had announced at the informal meeting 
held on 19 June 2007, he wished to submit to the DS B for decision his proposal regarding the process 
for selecting new Appellate Body members.  A copy of  this proposal had already been made available 
previously to Members attending the informal meeti ngs on this matter, and was also available as a 
room document at the present meeting.  Before turni ng to the content of his proposal, he noted that at 
the informal meeting, he had reported on the results  of his consultations with Members regarding the 
process for selecting new Appellate Body members.  He recalled that, at the informal meeting on 21 May 2007, based on his preliminar y consultations with delegations , he had made a proposal on the 
procedures for appointment of Appellate Body me mbers to the two positions on the Appellate Body 
for which the terms of office would expire on 10 December 2007 and the two positions for which the 
terms of office would expi re on 31 May 2008.  At that meeting, he had proposed, among other things , 
that the DSB deal with these four positions together  as part of the single selection process.  He said 
that this element of his proposal was based on the approach followed by  the DSB in the 2003 
Appellate Body selection process, namely, to carry  out one single process regarding the two positions 
on the Appellate Body for which terms of office we re to expire in December 2003 and the two 
positions for which terms of office were to expire in May 2004.  The record, as set out in document 
WT/DSB/M/153 of the July 2003 DSB meeting, indi cated that the then Chairman of the DSB had 
proposed that it would be more efficient for the DSB to deal with the four positions in question as part 
of the same process.  All delegations who had s poken at that meeting had supported the Chairman's 
proposal and the DSB had then agreed to the proposal. 
62. He recalled that as it had not been possible to reach consensus on at least one element of his 
proposal at the informal meeting on 21 May 2007, namely, that a single process be carried out for the 
positions on the Appellate Body whose terms woul d expire in December 2007 and May 2008, he had 
continued to consult with delegations on this ma tter.  On the basis of these consultations, he had 
reported on 19 June that it was his understanding th at delegations were now willing to accept his 
original proposal of 21 May.  He noted that his proposal was based on the procedures for selecting Appellate Body members, set out in a DSB decision  of 10 February 1995, which was contained in 
WT/DSB/1.  These procedures had been used for the appointment of all new Appellate Body 
members in the past and had worked well.  Th e key elements of these procedures were:  (i) 
nominations of candidates for A ppellate Body members were subm itted by delegations within the 
deadline established by a decision of the DSB;  (ii) appointment to the Appellate Body was by decision of the DSB as provided for in Article 17.2 of  the DSU which stipulated that:  "The DSB shall 
appoint persons to serve on the Appellate Body for a four-year term";  (iii) the decision of the DSB to 
appoint Appellate Body members as stipulated  in document WT/DSB/1, was based on a joint 
recommendation made by a Selection Committee c onsisting of the Director-General, and the 
Chairpersons of the General Council, the Goods Council, the Services Council, the TRIPS Council 
and the DSB;  (iv) the Selection Committee fo rmulated its recommendation to the DSB after 
conducting interviews of all the candidates for appoi ntment and after receiving views from interested 
delegations on candidates either orally or in writing ;  (v) the Selection Committee's recommendation 
reflected the requirements stipulated in Article 17. 3 of the DSU that:  "The Appellate Body shall 
comprise persons of recognized authority, with demons trated expertise in law, international trade and 
the subject matter of the covered agreements ge nerally.  They shall be unaffiliated with any 
government.  The Appellate Body membership shall be broadly representative of membership in the WT/DSB/M/234 
Page 14  
 
  WTO....";  and (vi) the final decision on appoin tments remained in the hands of the WTO 
Membership. 
63. In light of these agreed procedures, past prac tice, and his understanding that delegations were 
now willing to accept his proposal regarding the process  to be used for selecting four new Appellate 
Body members, the Chairman asked that the DSB agree to his proposal, which consisted of five 
elements:  "(i)  to launch a single selection process for the four positions on the Appellate Body whose 
terms expire in December 2007 and May 2008;  (ii)   to establish a Selection Committee, which, in 
accordance with the procedures contained in docum ent WT/DSB/1, would consist of the Director-
General and the 2007 Chairpersons  of the General Council, Goods Council, Services Council, TRIPS 
Council and the DSB;  (iii)  to set a deadline of 31 August 2007 for Members to nominate candidates;  
(iv)  to request the Selection Committee to conduct interviews with candidat es and to hear views of 
delegations in September and Oct ober and to make its recommendations to the DSB by no later than 
5 November 2007 and;  (v)  to take  a decision on the four positions in question at the DSB meeting on 
19 November 2007." 
64. The representative of Cuba
 said that her country joined the consensus reached with regard to 
the DSB decision on this matter inspite of the concer ns raised, both at the initial informal consultation 
and bilaterally, that the current Selection Comm ittee would exert considerable influence over the 
appointment of Appellate Body members.  Cuba hoped that the group of four candidates to be 
submitted for approval by all DSB Members would full y comply with Article 17.3 of the DSU, which 
required that the Appellate Body be comprised of not only persons of recognized authority, with 
demonstrated expertise in law, international trad e and the subject matter of the covered agreements 
generally, but also that the Appellate Body me mbership be broadly representative of the WTO 
Membership, which included countries from five continents, both develo ped and developing – the 
latter being the majority – and both large and small economies.  Cuba hoped that the future 
composition of the Appellate Body would reflect that diversity. 
65. The Chairman  said that he appreciated Cuba's cooperation on this matter. 
66. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to the Chairman's proposal on the procedures 
for appointment of Appellate Body members. 
67. The Chairman  said that, at this point, he wished to  remind delegations that nominations of 
candidates shall be submitted by Members by no la ter than close-of-business on 31 August 2007.  As 
was done in the past, the nominations along with th e curricula vitae of the nominees should be sent to 
the Chairman of the DSB in care of the Council and TNC Division.  This information would then be 
circulated to all Members as Job documents.  Th e Selection Committee would begin its work in 
September.  He would keep dele gations informed about the work and schedule of the Selection 
Committee, including how and when the Committee intended to hear the views of Members on the 
nominees. 
68. The DSB took note  of the statement. 
7. Proposed nomination for the indicative list of governmental and non-governmental 
panelists (WT/DSB/W/351) 
69. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DSB/W /351, which contained an additional 
name proposed for inclusion on the indicative list of  governmental and non-governmental panelists, in 
accordance with Article 8.4 of the DSU.  Unless th ere was any objection, he wished to propose that 
the DSB approve the name contained in document WT/DSB/W/351. 
70. The DSB so agreed .  WT/DSB/M/234 
 Page 15 
 
 
  71. The Chairman  said that, in connection with this agenda  item, he wished to recall that at the 
DSB meeting on 24 April 2007, he had made an announcement regarding the need to update the 
indicative list of governmental and non-government al panelists, pursuant to the proposals for the 
administration of the indicative lis t of panelists, approved by the DSB on 31 May 1995.  He recalled 
that, at that meeting, he had asked delegations  to submit to the Council and TNC Division of the 
WTO Secretariat updated curricula vitae of persons appearing on the current indicative list, contained 
in documents WT/DSB/33 and Add.1 through Add.11,  as well as to indicate any modifications they 
wished to make to the list.  At the present meeting,  he wished to remind delegations that this be done 
by the end of July 2007 so that an updated and cons olidated list could be circulated after the Summer 
break. 
72. The DSB took note  of the statement. 
__________