RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DSB/M/190 
20 June 2005 
 (05-2591) 
Dispute Settlement Body 
1 June 2005  
 
 
 
MINUTES OF MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard  
on 1 June 2005  
 
Acting Chairman:  Ms  Amina Mohamed (Kenya) 
 
   Prior to the adoption of the agenda
, the Chairman of the General Council, 
Ambassador Amina Mohamed, welcomed delegations and said that  she had the pleasure of chairing 
the present meeting in the absence of Ambassador Eirik Glenne, the Chairman of the Dispute 
Settlement Body.  She said that this was in accord ance with the Rules of Procedure for meetings of 
the Dispute Settlement Body which provided that:  "If the DSB Chairperson is absent from any 
meeting or part thereof, the Chairperson of th e General Council or in the latter's absence, the 
Chairperson of the Trade Policy Review Body, shal l perform the functions of the DSB Chairperson." 
 
Subjects discussed : Page  
 
1. United States – Final dumping determin ation on softwood lumber from Canada.............1  
(a) Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Canada:  Request for the establishment of a 
panel.......................................................................................................................... ..................1  
2. United States – Final dumping determin ation on softwood lumber from Canada.............2  
(a) Recourse to Article 22.2 of the DSU by Canada ........................................................................2  
 
1. United States – Final dumping determin ation on softwood lumber from Canada 
(a) Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Canada :  Request for the establishment of a panel 
(WT/DS264/16) 
1. The Chairman  drew attention to the communicati on from Canada contained in document 
WT/DS264/16 and  invited the representative of Canada to speak. 
2. The representative of Canada  said that on 31 August 2004, the DSB had adopted the Reports 
of the Panel and the Appellate Body in the case: "United States – Final Dumping Determination on 
Softwood Lumber from Canada".  He said that th e Panel and the Appellate Body Reports had found 
that the United States was in violation of its WTO obligations in determining the existence of 
dumping on the basis of a methodology incorpora ting the practice of zeroing and had recommended 
that the United States bring its measures into confor mity with its obligations under the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement.  At the 19 May 2005 DSB meeting,  the United States had reported that the US 
Department of Commerce had issued a new dumping determination. The United States had asserted 
that this new determination included revised calcula tions which brought it into conformity with its 
obligations under the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  Canada would not be before the DSB at the present 
meeting if the United States had simply complie d with the rulings and recommendations and had WT/DSB/M/190 
Page 2  
 
issued a revised dumping determination, which di d not include zeroing. Unfortunately, the United 
States had chosen to ignore the DSB's rulings  and recommendations and had issued a new 
determination which continued to use zeroing to determine the existence of dumping.  Canada 
considered that the United States had failed to co mply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings. 
The United States continued to impose anti-dumping duties based on a determination incorporating 
the practice of zeroing.  The United States, therefore, continued to violate its obligations under the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement.  The enormous financial burden resulting from this and other illegal US 
trade actions regarding Canadian softwood lumber continued to have a tr emendous negative impact 
on hundreds of companies, their workers and commun ities across Canada.  In light of the US failure 
to bring its measures into conformity with its ob ligations, Canada sought recourse in this matter to 
dispute settlement under Article 21.5 of the DSU. 
3. The representative of the United States
 said that his country regretted that Canada had chosen 
to request the establishment of a compliance panel under Article 21.5 of the DSU in this dispute.  He 
said that the United States had fully implemented the DSB's recommendations and rulings within the 
reasonable period of time. The United States disagreed with Canada's assertion that the US 
Department of Commerce's new dete rmination of the existence of dumping was not consistent with 
the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  Accordingly, the Un ited States considered that Canada's request for 
an Article 21.5 panel was unnecessary and without b asis. Nonetheless, pursuant to the agreement 
between the United States and Canada that had recen tly been submitted to the DSB for circulation to 
Members, the United States would accept the establishment of a panel at the present meeting. 
4. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed , pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU, to refer 
to the original Panel, if possible, the matter rai sed by Canada in document WT/DS264/16.  The Panel 
would have standard terms of reference. 
5. The representatives of China , the European Communities , India  and Japan  reserved their 
third-party rights to participate in the Panel's proceedings.      2. United States – Final dumping determin ation on softwood lumber from Canada 
(a) Recourse to Article 22.2 of the DSU by Canada (WT/DS/264/17) 
6. The Chairman
 drew attention to the communicati on from Canada contained in document 
WT/DS264/17, and invited the representative of Canada to speak. 
7. The representative of Canada  said that his country was also requesting authorization from the 
DSB, pursuant to Article 22.2 of the DSU, to su spend the application to the United States of its 
concessions or other obligations in an amount to be established yearly and wh ich would be equivalent 
to the level of nullification and impairment cau sed by improper US implementation of the DSB's 
rulings.  Canada wished to inform the DSB that it had entered into an agreement with the United 
States that provided that any proceedings pursuant to Article 22.6 of the DSU would be suspended 
until adoption by the DSB of its recommendations  and rulings in the Article 21.5 compliance 
proceedings. 
8. The representative of United States  said that his country regretted that Canada had requested 
authorization to suspend concessions or other obliga tions in this dispute. As he had noted in his 
statement under the previous agenda item, th e United States had fully implemented the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings prior to the expiration of  the reasonable period of time.  Therefore, on 
31 May 2005, the United States had informed the DSB that, pursuant to Article 22.6 of the DSU, the 
United States objected to the level of suspension of concessions proposed by Canada.  Under the 
terms of the DSU, the filing of this objection au tomatically resulted in the matter being referred to 
arbitration, and no further action was required of the DSB.  Indeed, Article 22.6 of the DSU did not refer to any decision by the DSB.  Consequently, th e matter was already being referred to arbitration.  WT/DSB/M/190 
 Page 3 
 
 
Nevertheless, the United States had no objection if the DSB wished to take note of that fact and confirm that it might not consider Canada's request for authorization, which was on the agenda of the 
present meeting, since the matter had been referred to  arbitration.  The United States would add that, 
pursuant to an agreement between the United States and Canada, once the arbitrator was constituted, 
the United States and Canada would request the ar bitrator to suspend its proceedings until the 
completion of the Article 21.5 proceedings. 
9. The DSB took note
 of the statements and it was agreed  that the matter raised by the 
United States in document WT/DS264/19 is referred to arbitration, as required by Article 22.6 of the 
DSU.  
__________