RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DSB/M/292 
18 March 2011 
 (11-1366) 
Dispute Settlement Body 
7 February 2011  
 
 
 
MINUTES OF MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard  
on 7 February 2011  
 
Chairman:  Mr. Yonov Frederick Agah (Nigeria) 
 
 Subjects discussed
: Page  
 
1.  Dominican Republic – Safeguard measures on imports of polypropylene bags 
and tubular fabric............................................................................................................. ........1 
(a)  Request for the establishment of  a panel by Costa Rica .............................................................1  
(b)  Request for the establishment of  a panel by Guatemala .............................................................1  
(c)  Request for the establishment of a panel by Honduras...............................................................1  
(d)  Request for the establishment of  a panel by El Salvador............................................................1  
2.  United States – Measures affecting imports of certain passenger vehicle and light 
truck tyres fr om China......................................................................................................... ....3 
(a)  Joint request by China and the United States for a decision by the DSB ...................................3  
 
 
1. Dominican Republic – Safeguard measures on  imports of polypropylene bags and 
tubular fabric 
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by Costa Rica (WT/DS415/7) 
(b) Request for the establishment of a panel by Guatemala (WT/DS416/7) 
(c) Request for the establishment of a panel by Honduras (WT/DS417/7) 
(d) Request for the establishment of a panel by El Salvador (WT/DS418/7) 
1. The Chairman  proposed that the four sub-items to wh ich he had just referred be considered 
together since they pertained to the same matter.  He recalled that the DSB had considered those 
matters at its meeting on 25 January 2011 and had agreed to revert to  them.  First, he drew attention to 
the communication from Costa Rica contained in document WT/DS415/7 and invited the 
representative of Costa Rica to speak. 
2. The representative of Costa Rica  said that, at the 25 January 2011 DSB meeting, Costa Rica 
had requested the establishment of a panel to exam ine the Dominican Republic's safeguard measures 
on imports of polypropylene bags and tubular fa bric from Costa Rica.  However, due to the 
Dominican Republic's objection, the panel had not b een established at that meeting.  Consequently, WT/DSB/M/292 
Page 2  
 
  Costa Rica was requesting, for the second time, that a panel be established to examine this matter.  In 
that regard, Costa Rica wished to recall the st atement it had made at the 25 January 2011 DSB 
meeting.  Given the similarities between the issu es raised in the panel request put forward by 
Costa Rica and those set out in the requests by Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, at the present 
meeting Costa Rica was requesting, pursuant to Ar ticle 9.1 of the DSU, that a single panel be 
established to examine those different complaints, w ith standard terms of re ference as set out in 
Article 7 of the DSU.  Moreover, as indicated in the panel request, given th e urgency of the matter, 
Costa Rica hoped that the panel would finalize its report within six months, as stipulated in Article 12.8 of the DSU. 
3. The Chairman
 drew attention to the communication from Guatemala contained in document 
WT/DS416/7 and invited the representative of Guatemala to speak. 
4. The representative of Guatemala  said that since at the 25 January 2011 DSB meeting the 
Dominican Republic had objected to the establishmen t of a panel, Guatemala was now requesting, for 
the second time, that such a panel be established to examine this matter.  Accordingly, Guatemala 
wished to reiterate all the points it had raised at  the January DSB meeting.  Moreover, as had been 
stated in the panel request, given the urgency of  the matter, Guatemala also hoped that the panel 
would finalize its report within six months, as stipulated in Article 12.8 of the DSU. 
5. The Chairman  drew attention to the communicati on from Honduras contained in document 
WT/DS417/7 and invited the representative of Honduras to speak. 
6. The representative of Honduras  said that, on 18 October 2010, Honduras had requested 
consultations with the Dominican Republic regard ing its safeguard measures imposed on imports of 
polypropylene bags and tubular fabric.  Honduras cons idered those measures to be inconsistent with 
Article XIX of the GATT 1994 and the Agreement on Sa feguards.  Those consultations had been held 
on 16 and 17 November 2010.  Although they had helped to narrow the gap between the parties and 
had enabled them to exchange views on the challenged measures, those consultations had 
unfortunately not resolved the matter.  Theref ore, Honduras was requesting the establishment of a 
panel to examine this matter.  The DSB had already considered this panel request at its meeting on 
25 January 2011 but, due to the Dominican Republic's  objection, the panel had not been established at 
that meeting.  Consequently, Honduras was, once agai n, requesting the establishment of a panel at the 
present meeting.  Since other Members had also re quested the establishment of a panel on the same 
matter, Honduras was requesting, pursuant to Artic le 9.1 of the DSU, that a single panel be 
established to examine those different complaints w ith standard terms of re ference, as set out in 
Article 7 of the DSU.  Moreover, given the urge ncy of the matter, and as indicated in the panel 
request, Honduras hoped that the panel would finalize its report within six months, as stipulated in 
Article 12.8 of the DSU. 
7. The Chairman  drew attention to the communication fro m El Salvador contained in document 
WT/DS418/7 and invited the representative of El Salvador to speak. 
8. The representative of El Salvador  said that, on 19 October 2010, El Salvador had requested 
consultations with the Dominican Republic re garding its safeguard measures on imports of 
polypropylene bags and tubular fabr ic.  El Salvador considered that those measures were inconsistent 
with, inter alia , Article XIX of the GATT 1994 and the Ag reement on Safeguards.  El Salvador, 
together with the other Members, which had been  affected by the safeguard measures on imports of 
polypropylene bags and tubular fa bric, had held consultations with  the Dominican Republic on 16 and 
17 November 2010.  As El Salvador had stated  at the 25 January 2011 DSB meeting, those 
consultations had helped to narro w the gap between the parties and had enabled them to exchange 
views on the challenged measures but, unfortunately, had not resolved the dispute.  Prior to the 
consultations, El Salvador had expressed concern re garding the measures at issue through various  WT/DSB/M/292 
 Page 3 
 
 
  official channels, including the Committee on Safegu ards.  Nevertheless, pursuant to a resolution of 
the Commission for the Regulation of Unfair Tr ade Practices and Safeguard Measures of the 
Dominican Republic, the measures imposed on imports of polypropylene bags and tubular fabric had 
been confirmed by the entry into force, as of 18 October 2010, of a definitive safeguard measure, 
which had a negative impact on El Salvador's exports to the Dominican Republic's market.  At its 
meeting on 25 January 2011, the DSB had already considered El Salvador's request for the 
establishment of a panel to examine the safeguard  measures imposed by the Dominican Republic, but 
due to the Dominican Republic's objection, the pa nel had not been established at that meeting.  
Consequently, El Salvador had requested, once agai n, that the DSB establish a panel at the present 
meeting.  Since other Members had also requested  the establishment of a panel on the same matter, 
El Salvador was requesting, pursuant to Article 9.1 of the DSU, that a single panel be established to 
examine those different complaints, with standard terms of reference as set out in Article 7 of the 
DSU.  As indicated in the panel request, given the urgency of the matter, El  Salvador hoped that the 
panel would finalize its report within six months, as stipulated in Article 12.8 of the DSU.   
9. The representative of the Dominican Republic  said that his country thanked its Central 
American trading partners for their statements a nd wished to reiterate what it had stated at the 
25 January 2011 DSB meeting.  As had been indi cated at that meeting, the Dominican Republic 
believed that dialogue should be pursued, as this matt er could not have been resolved in the course of 
just one round of consultations.  Once again, the Dominican Republic was not in a position to agree to 
the establishment of a panel requested by Cost a Rica, Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador. 
10. The representative of Panama  said that his country regretted that the Dominican Republic had 
not given favourable consideration to the concer ns and arguments put forward by Costa Rica, 
Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador.  He recalled th at due to its substantia l trade interest and the 
importance of the products at issue to its exporte rs, Panama had joined the consultations on this 
matter.  Panama was currently excluded from the a pplication of the measures in question, which was 
due to circumstances that could change at any tim e.  Accordingly, Panama would reserve its third-
party rights to participate in the Panel's proceedings. 
11. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to establish a single panel, pursuant to 
Article 9.1 of the DSU, with standard terms of re ference, to examine the complaint by Costa Rica 
contained in WT/DS415/7, the complaint by Guatem ala contained in WT/DS416/7, the complaint by 
Honduras contained in WT/DS417/7 and the complaint by El Salvador contained in WT/DS418/7.   
12. The representatives of China , Colombia , the European Union , Nicaragua , Panama , Turkey  
and the United States  reserved their third-party rights to participate in the Panel's proceedings. 
2. United States – Measures affecting imports of certain passenger vehicle and light truck 
tyres from China 
(a) Joint request by China and the United Stat es for a decision by the DSB (WT/DS399/5) 
13. The Chairman  drew attention to the communication from China and the United States 
contained in document WT/DS399/5 and invited the representative of China to speak. 
14. The representative of China  said that, taking into account the current workload of the 
Appellate Body, China had agreed with the Un ited States that the DSB shall, no later than 
24 May 2011, adopt the Panel Report in this dispute unless the DSB decided by consensus not to do 
so or either party to the dispute notified the DSB of  its decision to appeal.  China considered that a 
DSB decision for this purpose would provide gr eater flexibility in scheduling, given the heavy 
workload of the Appellate Body. WT/DSB/M/292 
Page 4  
 
  15. The representative of the United States
  said that his country joined China in requesting that 
the DSB agree to provide additional time for adoption or  appeal of the Panel Report in this dispute by 
adopting the draft decision set out in document WT/D S399/5.  The United States clarified that it was 
not joining the request out of any concern with th e Panel Report.  To the contrary, the Panel had 
conducted a thorough evaluation of the issues in this  dispute, in a clear and efficient manner.  The 
Panel's findings that the United States had acted co nsistently with its WTO obligations were well-
founded in the applicable provisions of the WTO Agre ement and the factual record in the dispute.  
However, the Appellate Body had informally requested  the parties to delay any appeal in this dispute 
until May 2011.  After discussions between the par ties, the United States and China had decided to 
make this joint request.  The draft decision woul d provide for DSB adoption of the Panel Report by 
negative consensus until 24 May 2011.  In that rega rd, the United States noted that this was the third 
decision the DSB had been asked to take in two m onths to delay possible appeals in three different 
disputes.  The Appellate Body was currently working on two appeals, one of which had been filed in 
July 2010.  The United States believed that swift resolution of those pending appeals could help minimize delays in, and a growing backlog of, an y appeals in other disputes.  The United States 
appreciated the DSB's support for the draft decision. 
16. The DSB took note
 of the statements.   
17. The Chairman  proposed that:  "The DSB agree that, upon a request by China or the 
United States, the DSB shall no later than 24 May 2011, adopt the Report of the Panel in the dispute:  
United States – Measures Affecting Imports of C ertain Passenger Vehicle and Light Truck Tyres from 
China , contained in document WT/DS399/R unless (i) the DSB decides by consensus not to do so or 
(ii) either party to the dispute notifies the DSB of its decision to appeal pursuant to Article 16.4 of the 
DSU". 
18. The DSB so agreed . 
__________