RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DSB/M/248 
30 April 2008 
 (08-2077) 
Dispute Settlement Body 
14 March 2008  
 
 
  
 
MINUTES OF MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard
 
on 14 March 2008  
 
Chairman:  Mr. Mario Matus (Chile) 
  
Prior to the adoption of the Agenda
1 
  Subjects discussed
: Page  
 
1. Surveillance of implementation of recommendations adopted by the DSB.........................2  
(a) United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropr iations Act of 1998:  Status report by 
the United States .............................................................................................................. ...........2  
(b) United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from 
Japan:  Status report by  the United States...................................................................................5  
(c) United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act:  Status report by 
the United States .............................................................................................................. ...........6  
(d) European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products:  Status report by the European Communities..............................................................6  
2. United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000:  Implementation of the recommenda tions adopted by the DSB ............................................8
 
(a) Statements by the European Communities and Japan ................................................................8  
3. United States – Measures relating to zeroing and sunset reviews ......................................10  
(a) Statement by Japan ............................................................................................................. ......10  
4. Proposed nominations for the indicative list of governmental and 
non-governmental panelists ...................................................................................................10  
5. Mexico – Anti-dumping measures on steel tubes and pipes originating from Guatemala...................................................................................................................... ..........11
 
(a) Statement by  Mexico ............................................................................................................ ....11  
 
                                                      
1 See page 2. WT/DSB/M/248 
Page 2  
 
  Prior to the adoption of the Agenda
 
  Amb. Mario Matus, as new Chairman of the DSB, said that, prior to the opening of the 
present meeting, he wished to thank the previous Chairman of the DSB, Amb. Bruce Gosper, for his 
statement made at the 19 February DSB meeting following the election of the new Chairman of the 
DSB (Item 4).  Amb. Matus also wished to take this opportunity to acknowledge the work done by 
Amb. Gosper in the course of the past year.  He said that Amb. Gosper was a professional with 
recognized skills and experience who had recently been appointed by acclamation as new Chairman 
of the General Council for 2008.  Amb. Matus recalled that, during his term of office as 2007 Chairman of the DSB, Amb. Gosper had had to seek  solutions to sensitive matters.  To this effect, 
Amb. Gosper had carried out a series of consultations  on how best to proceed to find a way forward, 
bearing in mind that no negative consequences be imposed on the system.  He wished to recognize 
Amb. Gosper's efforts in this regard.  Finally, Amb.  Matus stated that he also wished to thank those 
delegations who, at the 19 Febr uary DSB meeting upon his election as new Chairman of the DSB, had 
paid tribute to him and had welcomed him as new Chairman of the DSB.  He said that he counted on 
Members' support in the course of the year.
2   
 
 The DSB took note  of the statement. 
 
 
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.64) 
 (b) United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan:  
Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.64) 
 
(c) United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act:  Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/Add.39) 
 (d) European Communities – Measures affecting th e approval and marketing of biotech products:  
Status report by the European Communities (WT/DS291/37/Add.2–WT/DS292/31/Add.2–
WT/DS293/31/Add.2) 
 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.64) 
2. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS176/ 11/Add.64, 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. 
                                                      
2  Subsequently, in the course of the meeting (under various Agenda items), the following delegations 
made brief statements to welcome Amb. Matus as ne w Chairman of the DSB: Mexico, the United States, 
the EC, Cuba, Venezuela, India, Brazil, China, Thailand, Nicaragua, Viet Nam, Japan, Argentina, Canada and 
Guatemala.   WT/DSB/M/248 
 Page 3 
 
 
  3. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 3 March 2008, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  As noted in that 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 administration co ntinued to work with the Congress to implement 
the DSB's recommendations and rulings. 
4. The representative of the European Communities
 said that the previous month had marked the 
sixth anniversary of the condemnation of Section 211 as WTO-incompatible.  However, the EC was 
still waiting for the United States to comply with the DSB's ruling.  The EC hoped that the bipartisan bills introduced to repeal Section 211 would finally progress and would bring the United States into 
compliance with its TRIPS obligations. 
5. The representative of Cuba
 noted that, in February 2008, six years had passed since the 
adoption by the DSB of the recommendations and rulings in this dispute.  At that time, the DSB had endorsed the finding that Section 211 of the Om nibus Appropriations Act of 1998 violated the 
national and most-favoured-nation treatment obliga tions under the TRIPS Agreement and the Paris 
Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property.   Thus, the United States had been requested to 
bring its WTO-inconsistent measure into conformity  with its obligations under the TRIPS Agreement.  
It would soon be three years since the expiry of the last deadline, on 30 June 2005, for the US implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings, which required the US Congress to take 
legislative measures.  In accordan ce with Article 21.6 of the DSU, the United States continued to 
provide a status report each month.  Those status re ports were repetitive and merely stated that several 
legislative proposals relating to Section 211 whic h would implement the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings in this dispute had been introduced in both the US Senate and the US House of 
Representatives.  At the 19 February 2008 DSB meeti ng, in response to requests made by Members to 
resolve this dispute once and for all, the US dele gation had proclaimed the United States to be a 
compliant Member in the system.  However, the f acts contradicted the US assertion.  Hearing month 
after month that the US administration was working with the current Congress to resolve this dispute 
was even more outrageous.  The review of what had happened in 2007 demonstrated that what was 
being indicated in those status reports was very far from the truth.  In 2007, five bipartisan legislative 
proposals relating to Section 211, based on previous drafts, had been introduced to the US Congress.  
Two of those proposals were aimed at maintaini ng Section 211 and making only misleading cosmetic 
changes.  The other three proposals, which had not been promoted by the US administration – 
responsible for compliance with the DSB's decision – proposed the repeal of Section 211.  None of 
those proposals had been successful and some had not even been discussed.  
6. All were aware that Section 211 pursued a stra tegic objective.  The draft provision had been 
submitted in 1998 by one of the lawyers and adviser s of the Bacardi company.  The intention had 
always been to usurp Cuban trademarks of recognized  international prestige that were duly registered 
in the US territory and protected under intern ational treaties and agreements to which the 
United States was also a party.  This was the case of the Havana Club trademark, owned by the Cuban-French joint venture, Havana Club Holdi ng.  Bacardi-Martini had been marketing rum under 
the Havana Club brand since 1995.  After the US Pate nt and Trademark Office had arbitrarily denied 
the renewal of the Havana Club trademark in Augus t 2006, Bacardi had suspiciously been quick to 
reintroduce on the market a supposedly "genuinely C uban" rum made in Puerto Rico.  He noted that 
the US Patent and Trademark Office had a vast database,  and invited delegations to  take a look at it – 
Bacardi's applications and registrations were listed there.  In two of those applications, the Havana 
Club trademark was claimed once for distinguishin g rum and once for clothing, in 1994 and 1999 
respectively.  Whichever way one looked at it, th e objective was clear.  Cuba, on the other hand, had 
scrupulously respected the more than 4,930 US tr ademarks registered and protected by Cuba, 
including the 15 trademarks owned by Bacardi.  Th is demonstrated Cuba's strict adherence to the 
rules of international law.   WT/DSB/M/248 
Page 4  
 
  7. According to the 2007 report of the US Na tional Intellectual Property Law Enforcement 
Coordination Council, in 2008 the United States w ould continue to help developing countries 
establish effective protection regimes.  Cuba wo ndered how such concer n for the enforcement 
regimes of third parties could be taken seriously, when Section 211, which ran counter to the WTO 
Agreements and the WIPO Conventions, remained in force.  
8. In conclusion, Cuba reiterated that the indefinite  delay in the settlement of this dispute made a 
mockery of the principle of prompt compliance set forth in the DSU provisions.  Furthermore, it cast 
doubt on the effective functioning of the dispute settlement mechanism and both the credibility of the 
DSB and the multilateral trading system, in partic ular the principles of national and most-favoured-
nation treatment, which were the cornerstones of the WTO.  It also affected the balance between the 
rights and obligations of Members as well as the e quality of Members.  It set a dangerous systemic 
precedent, which could have implications for othe r Members in future, in particular developing 
countries.  Cuba requested, once again, the immediate repeal of Section 211.  Cuba wondered how long the economic power of the United States would allo w that country to maintain its irrational force 
in international institutions and make a mockery of the agreed legal framework. 
9. The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
 said that her country supported 
Cuba's statement.  She noted that it had been six years since the adoption of the recommendations and rulings adopted by the DSB, but no implementation had taken place.  This continued non-compliance 
called into question the effective functioning of the dispute settlement mechanism.  Under the DSU 
provisions, prompt compliance with the recommendations  and rulings was required, in particular with 
regard to the matters affecting the interests of de veloping countries.  Her country regretted that no 
implementation had taken place in this dispute.  The dispute settlement mechanism was one of the 
main achievements of the Uruguay Round and, for that reason, her country requested that the 
United States take appropriate measures to ensure that this dispute be resolved. 
10. The representative of India
 said that his country thanked the United States for the status report 
and the statement made at the present meeting.  Indi a wished to renew its systemic concerns about the 
situation arising out of non-compliance in this di spute.  Despite the adoption of the Panel and the 
Appellate Body Reports by the DSB in this case several years ago, Members were still waiting for 
implementation and compliance by the United States .  India reiterated that non-compliance with the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings by any Memb er undermined the dispute settlement system, 
which was one of the main achievements of the Uruguay Round. 
11. The representative of Brazil  said that his country called the attention of all Members to the 
continued non-compliance in this dispute.  Brazil urged the United States to take immediate action to 
ensure the implementation of the DSB's recommenda tions.  Apart from providing the necessary relief 
to the complainant, the full implementation in the dispute under discussion as well as in other disputes 
considered under Item 1 of the DSB's Age nda, would have a positive effect on the overall 
effectiveness of the WTO dispute settlement system.  
12. The representative of China  said that his country thanked the United States for its status report 
and its statement made at the present meeting.  Chin a, once again, wished to reiterate its systemic 
concerns with the protracted implementation process in this dispute.  The prompt and full implementation of the DSB's rulings and recommenda tions was one of the major cornerstones of the 
WTO dispute settlement system.  China hoped that the current US Congress would realize that it was in the interest of not only other Members, but also in  the interest of the United States, to put an end to 
this situation, which undermined the authority of  the TRIPS Agreement and the creditability of the 
WTO dispute settlement system.  Therefore, China ur ged the United States to make an extra effort to 
bring itself promptly into conformity with the decision of the DSB.  WT/DSB/M/248 
 Page 5 
 
 
  13. The representative of Thailand  said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report and the statement made at the present meeting.   Like previous speakers, Thailand wished to 
express its concern over the systemic implications of this dispute.  Non-implementation of the DSB's rulings and recommendations undermined the rules- based multilateral trading system.  Thailand, 
therefore, urged the United States to take the necessary and urgent steps to comply with its obligations 
under the TRIPS Agreement. 
14. The representative of Nicaragua
 said that her country wished to reiterate certain concerns with 
regard to this dispute, and thanked the United Stat es and Cuba for their respective statements.  In 
particular, Nicaragua wished to thank Cuba for its  statement, in which C uba had provided relevant 
information on the status of this dispute.  In light of trade implications for the parties concerned, the 
delay in complying with the DSB's recommendations  undermined the efficient functioning of the 
dispute settlement mechanism.  Therefore, Ni caragua reiterated, once again, its call on the 
United States to make every possible effort to fu lly comply with the DSB's recommendations in this 
dispute. 
15. The representative of Viet Nam  said that, like previous speakers, his country wished to 
express its concern over the delay in the implemen tation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  
Viet Nam, once again, called on the United States to take urgent step s to comply with its obligations 
under the TRIPS Agreement. 
16. The representative of the United States  said that, in response to the systemic concerns 
regarding compliance expressed by some Members,  the United States would note that the record 
showed that the United States had fully complied in the vast majority of the disputes in which it had 
been involved.  As for the remaining few, includi ng the dispute under discussion, the United States 
was actively working towards compliance. 
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.64) 
18. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS184/ 15/Add.64, 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 3 March 2008, in accordance with Ar ticle 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 Congress with respect to the recommendati ons 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 her country thanked the United States for its statement 
and the status report.  Japan acknowledged that , in November 2002, the United States had taken 
certain measures to implement part of the DSB's recommendations, as reported by the United States.  
The fact remained, however, that the remaining part of the recommendations had not yet been 
implemented, and the issue of implementation in  this case was still on the DSB's agenda.  Japan 
strongly hoped that the United States would soon be in a position to report to the DSB on more 
tangible progress in this long-standing dispute.  A full and prompt implementation of the DSB's WT/DSB/M/248 
Page 6  
 
  recommendations and rulings was essential for ma intaining the credibility of the WTO dispute 
settlement system.  Japan urged the United States to  come into full compliance without further delay. 
21. The DSB took note
 of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(c) United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act:  Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/Add.39) 
22. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS160/ 24/Add.39, 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 3 March 2008, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  The US administration 
would work closely with the US Congress and would c ontinue to confer with the EC, in order to reach 
a mutually satisfactory resolution of this matter.  In  this regard, the United States appreciated the EC's 
recent statements that the EC remain ed prepared to work with the Un ited States to seek a resolution to 
this dispute.  The United States shared the EC's goal of discussing how such a mutually satisfactory 
solution could be achieved. 
24. The representative of the European Communities  said that there was nothing much to say.  
The US status report was static – it had been a co py and paste exercise for a long time now.  The EC 
was still waiting.  
25. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(d) European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products:  
Status report by the European Communities (WT/DS291/37/Add.2–WT/DS292/31/Add.2–WT/DS293/31/Add.2) 
26. The Chairman
 drew attention to document WT/DS291/37/Add.2–WT/DS292/31/Add.2–
WT/DS293/31/Add.2, which contained the status report by the European Communities on progress in 
the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in  the case concerning the EC's measures affecting 
the approval and marketing of biotech products. 
27. The representative of th e European Communities  said that this case was an example of good 
faith cooperation between the complainants and the defendant in relation to compliance with a WTO 
panel report.  The EC had been holding regular technical discussions with the three complainants, 
which had addressed all relevant biotech-related i ssues of their concern.  In recognition of the 
usefulness of this dialogue and progress made in the processing of pending applications, the three 
complainants had agreed to further extend th e initial 12-month reasonable period of time for 
implementation (RPT) until 11 January 2008.  Two of  the complainants (Argentina and Canada) had 
agreed to a second extension of the RPT of five and one months respectively.  Canada had even 
agreed to a third extension of 20 weeks (i.e. un til 30 June 2008), which clearly showed recognition of 
progress being made. 
28. According to the sequencing agreement reached by the United States and the EC, both parties 
had requested the suspension of Article 22.6 arb itration proceedings, suspension which had been 
effective from 18 February 2008.  The United States had agreed not to resume those proceedings until 
compliance procedures under Article 21.5 were conc luded.  She noted that numbers might be 
illustrative in assessing progress.  Fifteen applicati ons had been approved since the WTO panel had  WT/DSB/M/248 
 Page 7 
 
 
  been established in August 2003.  Only in 2007, seven new GM products had been authorized and 
five other products would likely be approved in early 2008.  The EC believed that given the inevitably 
sensitive nature of biotech issues, dialogue was th e appropriate way forward and remained open to 
continue discussions with the three complainants. 
29. The representative of the United States  said that his country thanked the EC for its written 
status report and for its statement made at the pr esent meeting.  The reasonable period of time for the 
EC's compliance in this dispute had expired on 11 January 2008.  The issues covered in the dispute 
remained unresolved, even though nearly five y ears had passed since the United States had filed its 
consultation request in May 2003.  The EC, as it ha d done at the February DSB meeting, had cited 
progress in making approvals.  Accordingly, the Un ited States – as it had done at the February DSB 
meeting – had to respond in order to provide the DSB with a more complete understanding of this 
matter.  In a nutshell, the supposed progress claime d by the EC had not come close to resolving the 
problems with the EC's biotech approval procedures .  The number of biotech applications currently 
pending in the EC approval system – over 40 in number – was even greater than the number of 
applications pending when the complainants first br ought this dispute in 2003.  Many of the products 
covered by the pending applications were currently approved, grown, and marketed around the world.  
One pending application had been filed nearly tw elve years ago.  The Commission was not even 
following its own mandated timetables.  The EC's  ongoing failure to make timely decisions had 
resulted in a serious barrier to trade.  
30. And, even when the EC approved a biotech product, the EC member States apparently felt 
free to ignore the EC's own positive scientific asse ssments and to adopt na tional bans on products 
approved at the EC level.  The DSB had found such ba ns to be in breach of the EC's obligations under 
the SPS Agreement.  Yet some of the bans iden tified in the DSB's recommendations and rulings 
remained in force.  In addition, certain EC me mber States – including France, Hungary, and Greece – 
had adopted new bans on some of the same bi otech products covered by the EC member State 
measures found to be in breach of SPS obligations .  Having said that, the United States looked 
forward to continuing its dialogue with the EC.  The United States continued to hope that the EC 
would take the steps necessary to resolve this di spute so that there would be no need for the 
United States to resort to the withdrawal of concessions or other obligations.   
31. The representative of Argentina  said that his country welcomed the status report submitted by 
the EC.  As his delegation had stated at the 19 Fe bruary DSB meeting, and as had been mentioned by 
the EC at the present meeting, Argentina wished to emphasize its satisfaction at  the cooperative nature 
of the dispute proceedings thus far.  The efforts made had enabled the parties to progress in resolving 
a number of aspects relating to this dispute, and ha d made it possible to deal with the problems that 
had arisen thus far.  Argentina hoped that these ef forts would continue until a definitive solution was 
found to the matter brought before the DSB. 
32. The representative of Canada  said that his country thanked the EC for its status report.  
Canada continued to monitor the progress made on this file closely.  It was Canada's expectation that 
the EC would complete all steps necessary to achieve  a mutually satisfactory resolution of this dispute 
before the expiry of the reasonable period of time for implementation on 30 June 2008. 
33. The representative of the European Communities  said the GMO regulatory regime was 
working normally, as could be demonstrated by the sev en authorizations granted in 2007 (15 since the 
establishment of the WTO panel in August 2003).  Five  more applications were in the final stage of 
the authorization procedure.  The EC had acted upon all the various national measures covered by the 
ruling of the WTO Panel Report.  All those measu res had become obsolete, with the only exception 
being the Austrian measures on GM maize MON810 and T-25.  Concerning the Austrian measures, 
the Commission had tabled revised proposals to the Environment Council held on 30 October 2007, 
requesting Austria to lift the ban on import and processing of these GM events.  The Commission had WT/DSB/M/248 
Page 8  
 
  also requested Austria to provide scientific info rmation supporting the ban on cultivation of these 
GMO events.  The Commission was cu rrently examining the information provided by Austria.  The 
EC member States could adopt safeguard measures provided that they complied with the conditions 
established by the EC legislation, notably scien tific information supporting the need for such 
measures.  The Commission was determined to act  upon any measure of the EC member States that 
was in violation of that legislation.   
34. 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 Communities and Japan 
35. The Chairman  said that this item was on the agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
the European Communities and Japan.  He inv ited the respective representatives to speak. 
36. The representative of th e European Communities  said that the EC reiterated its position that 
the United States had not taken all steps necessary to bring itself into compliance with its WTO 
obligations as WTO-incompatible distributions of anti-dumping and countervailing duties continued 
and would continue for a number of years.  The United States had distributed in November 2007 more 
than US$262 million to US companie s, which had put the total amount disbursed, thus far, under the 
CDSOA close to US$2 billion.  The EC wished to ask again the United States if and what steps it 
intended to take to stop the transfer of anti-dumpi ng 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 implementati on reports in this dispute. 
37. The representative of Japan  said that the latest distributions under the CDSOA, which had 
been announced in December 20073, amounted to some US$262 million.  This US action 
demonstrated that the CDSOA was still operational.   The CDSOA continued to cause negative trade 
impacts on Japan and other WTO Members.  Japan, once again, urged the United States to 
immediately terminate the illegal distributions and to repeal the CDSOA not just in form, but in 
substance so as to resolve this dispute once and for all.  According to Article 21.6 of the DSU, the 
United States was under obligation to provide the DSB with a status report in this dispute "until the 
issue is resolved".  Japan reserved all its right s under the DSU until the United States came into full 
compliance  
38. The representative of Brazil  said that his country thanked the EC and Japan for raising this 
important issue, once more, before the DSB, and jo ined them in urging the United States to take the 
necessary actions to fully implement the DSB's re commendations and rulings.  Brazil recognized that 
the proceeds from duties collected under the Byrd  Amendment after October 2007 had not been 
directed to the domestic industry anymore.  Howe ver, it was true that disbursements under the 
CDSOA were still being made, to the detriment of Me mbers' rights, and in contradiction with the US 
obligations under the DSU.  It was Brazil's understanding that the United States must completely 
discontinue all disbursements under the Byrd Amendment as a way of implementing the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings.  Furthermore, any righ ts of WTO Members arising in relation to this 
dispute shall be preserved. 
                                                      
3 "FY2007 Annual Disbursements Report" issued by the "US – Customs and Border Protection" on 
5 December 2007.  WT/DSB/M/248 
 Page 9 
 
 
  39. The representative of Canada  said that her country thanked the EC and Japan for continuing 
to put this matter on the DSB's Agenda.  Canada agreed with the EC an d Japan that the Byrd 
Amendment should remain subject to the surve illance of the DSB until the United States ceased to 
administer it. 
40. The representative of China  said that his country thanked the EC and Japan for, once again, 
raising this item at the DSB meeting.  China s upported the views expressed by previous speakers and 
wished to join them in urging the United St ates to comply fully with the DSB's rulings. 
41. The representative of India  said that her country thanked the EC and Japan for maintaining 
this issue on the DSB's agenda and joined those de legations in urging the United States to eliminate 
the trade-distorting effects of the disbursements under the Byrd Amendment.  The United States was 
still distributing disbursements under the CDSOA to  the US domestic industry as a result of this 
WTO-inconsistent measure at the expense of fore ign producers and exporters and of WTO Member's 
rights.  India, therefore, urged the United States to  cease its WTO-inconsistent disbursements.  India 
supported the view that continued surveillance by the DSB was needed. 
42. The representative of Thailand  said that his country wished to join previous speakers in 
thanking the EC and Japan for conti nuing to bring this item before the DSB.  Thailand appreciated the 
positive steps taken by the United States to stop disbursing to its industries AD/CVD duties collected 
on goods entering the United States from 1 Octobe r 2007.  However, AD/CVD duties collected on 
goods that entered the United States prior to 1 Oct ober 2007 continued to be disbursed to the domestic 
industry under the Byrd Amendment.  Thailand, th erefore, urged the United States to cease its WTO-
inconsistent disbursements, to repeal the Byrd Amendment with immediate practical effect, and to 
resume providing status reports until such actions we re taken and this matter had been fully resolved. 
43. The representative of the United States  said that, as his country had explained at prior 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.  The United States welc omed the EC's and Japan's recognition that the 2006 
Deficit Reduction Act did not permit the distri bution of duties collected on goods entered after 
1 October 2007.  The United States, therefore, remain ed surprised to hear the statements made by the 
EC and Japan at the present meeting.  With respect  to comments regarding further status reports and 
the DSB's surveillance in this matter, as the Un ited States had already explained at previous DSB 
meetings, the United States had taken all steps necessary to implement the DSB's recommendations 
and rulings in these disputes.  In this light, the United States failed to see what purpose would be 
served by further submission of status reports repeating the progress the United States made in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings.   
44. Finally, the United States wished to comment on Members' statements made at the present 
meeting that this legislation – a lthough repealed – continued to cause trade distortions.  Frankly, the 
United States found this statement surprising.  Th e United States recalled that, with one exception, 
none of the complaining parties in this dispute ha d claimed that the CDSOA caused trade-distorting 
effects under the SCM Agreement.  Indeed, none of  the Members speaking at the present meeting had 
made such a claim.  Furthermore, though one Me mber had claimed that the CDSOA caused trade-
distorting effects under the SCM Agreement, those a dverse effects claims had been rejected by the 
Panel.  Members' comments alleging any trade-di storting effects were, thus, not based on any DSB 
recommendations and rulings.  The United States, therefore, failed to understand the basis for 
Members' continuing statements that their trade with the United States was being distorted by virtue of the now-repealed CDSOA. 
45. The DSB took note
 of the statements.  WT/DSB/M/248 
Page 10  
 
  3. United States – Measures relating to zeroing and sunset reviews  
(a) Statement by Japan 
46. The Chairman
 said that this item was on the agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
Japan, and invited the represen tative of Japan to speak. 
47. The representative of Japan  said that her country had proposed that this item be placed on the 
Agenda of the present meeting in accordance with Artic le 21.6 of the DSU.  First, Japan wished to 
inform the DSB that, on 10 March 2008, Japan and the United States had concluded ad hoc  
procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU, or so-called "sequenci ng agreement", which had 
been circulated in document WT/DS322/26.  In  accordance with those procedures, Japan would 
initiate the compliance proceedings, pursuant to Artic le 21.5 of the DSU, to resolve the disagreement 
between Japan and the United States regarding the US implementations in this dispute.  The parties 
would also request the Article 22.6 Arbitrator to suspend its work.  Japan considered that these 
procedural arrangements would serve to facilitate the orderly resolution of this dispute without 
unnecessary complications. 
48. Second, at the previous regular DSB meeting held on 19 February 2008, Japan had asked the 
United States to clarify its position on the status  of implementation of the DSB's recommendations 
regarding the two sunset reviews, which had been challenged and found to be WTO-inconsistent.  In 
response, the United States had observed that for both of those sunset reviews it had conducted subsequent sunset reviews and, as a result, it had revoked the anti-dumping duty order regarding 
corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products, but had made a "determination continuing the anti-
dumping duty order" regarding antifriction bearings.  Japan appreciated the information provided by 
the United States in its statement.  However, Japan  was still not sure whether the US "observations" 
explained the US position on implemen tations regarding the sunset reviews, especially the one for the 
anti-dumping duty order on antifriction bearings whic h were still in place.  Therefore, Japan, once 
again, wished to invite the United States to fu rther elaborate on its position regarding this matter. 
49. The representative of the United States
 said that, regarding Japan's reference to the conclusion 
of a sequencing agreement, the United States a ppreciated Japan's willingness to work with the 
United States in reaching a sequencing agreement.  The sequencing agreement would be circulated to 
Members.  Regarding Japan's statement that it in tended to invoke Article 21.5 of the DSU, the 
United States would refer to capital the information provided by Japan.  The United States very much regretted hearing that Japan would be pursuing this matter and urged Japan to reconsider its position.  
Finally, regarding Japan's reference to the two sunset reviews, the United States had heard the 
statement made by Japan and would relay that to cap ital.  With respect to Japan's inquiries regarding 
the status of US implementation on various measur es, the United States noted that this issue was 
currently the subject of a dispute settlement pro ceeding, and these issues would be taken up there. 
50. The DSB took note
 of the statements. 
4. Proposed nominations for the indicative list of governmental and non-governmental 
panelists (WT/DSB/W/372) 
51. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DSB /W/372, which contained additional 
names proposed for inclusion on the indicative list of governmental and non-g overnmental panelists, 
in accordance with Article 8.4 of th e DSU.  Unless there was any obj ection, he wished to propose that 
the DSB approve the names contained in document WT/DSB/W/372. 
52. The DSB so agreed .  WT/DSB/M/248 
 Page 11 
 
 
  5. Mexico – Anti-dumping measures on steel tubes and pipes originating from Guatemala 
(a) Statement by Mexico  
53. The representative of Mexico , speaking under "Other Business", said that in compliance with 
the recommendations and rulings of the Panel Report in the dispute:  "Mexico – Anti-Dumping Duties 
on Steel  Pipes and Tubes from Guatemala" (DS331/R) a nd, within the reasonable period of time 
agreed between Mexico and Guatemala, his c ountry, in accordance with the administrative 
procedures, had published, in the Diario Oficial de la Federación  (Official Journal) of 
24 January 2008, the results of the preliminary r esolution concluding the revi ew of the countervailing 
duty imposed on imports of standard tubes from Guatemala, thereby eliminating the anti-dumping 
duties at issue.  With the entry in to force of the measure in questi on, Mexico considered that it had 
complied with the recommendations and rulings of the Panel.  
54. The representative of Guatemala  said that his country welcomed the fact that Mexico, in 
implementing the rulings and recommendations of the Panel, had chosen to eliminate the anti-
dumping measure in question.  As a developing  country with a small and vulnerable economy, 
Guatemala believed that the resolution of this di spute contributed to the strengthening of the 
multilateral trading system and renewed its conf idence in the dispute se ttlement mechanism.  
55. The DSB took note  of the statements. 
__________