RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DSB/M/266 
19 May 2009 
 (09-2443) 
Dispute Settlement Body 
20 March 2009  
 
 
   
MINUTES OF MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard
 
on 20 March 2009  
 
Chairman:  Mr. John Gero (Canada) 
  
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  
(e) European Communities – Regime for the importation, sale and distribution of 
bananas:  Second recourse to Article 21.5 by Ecuador:  Status report by 
the European Communities....................................................................................................... ..8 
(f) Brazil – Measures affecting imports of retread ed tyres:  Status report by Brazil .....................12  
2. United States – Continued existence and application of zeroing methodology .................13  
(a) Implementation of the recommendations of the DSB...............................................................13  
3. United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000:  
Implementation of the recommenda tions adopted by the DSB ..........................................14  
(a) Statements by the European Communities and Japan ..............................................................14  
4. United States – Measures concerning the importation, marketing and sale of 
tuna and tuna products ......................................................................................................... .16 
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by Mexico ................................................................16  
5. United States – Anti-dumping measures on  polyethylene retail carrier bags from 
Thailand....................................................................................................................... ............17  
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by Thailand ..............................................................17  WT/DSB/M/266 
Page 2  
 
  6.
 China – Measures affecting the protection and enforcement of intellectual 
property rights ................................................................................................................ ........17  
(a) Report of the Panel............................................................................................................ ........17  
7. Proposed nomination for the indicative list of governmental and 
non-governmental panelists ...................................................................................................22  
8. Appointment of Appella te Body members............................................................................22  
(a) Statement by the Chairman...................................................................................................... .22 
 
 
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.76) 
 (b) United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan:  
Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.76) 
 
(c) United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act:  Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/Add.51) 
 (d) European Communities – Measures affecting th e approval and marketing of biotech products:  
Status report by the European Communities (WT/DS291/37/Add.14 – 
WT/DS292/31/Add.14 – WT/DS293/31/Add.14) 
 (e) European Communities – Regime for the importation, sale and distribution of bananas:  
Second recourse to Article 21.5 by Ecuador:  Status report by the European Communities (WT/DS27/96/Add.2) 
 
(f) Brazil – Measures affecting imports of retreaded tyres:  Status report by Brazil 
(WT/DS332/19) 
 
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 sha ll remain on the DSB's Agenda until the issue is 
resolved".  He proposed that the six sub-items to wh ich 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.76) 
2. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS176/ 11/Add.76, 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 9 March 2009, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  As noted in that status report, legislative proposals that would implemen t the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this 
dispute had been introduced in the current Congress, which convened in January.  The US 
administration was working with Congress to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  WT/DSB/M/266 
 Page 3 
 
 
  4. The representative of the European Communities  said that, at the present meeting, the 
United States was presenting its seventy-sixth status report on its lack of progress in the implementation of the DSB ruling in this dispute.  The EC still hoped that this would change and that 
the United States would take steps to implement the DSB ruling. 
5. The representative of Cuba
 said that, on 16 January 2009, the United States had submitted a 
proposal on "Improvements for the WTO Appellate Body" (WT/DSB/W398).  In the introduction, the 
United States had stated that "the creation of the Appellate Body in the Uruguay Round was an 
important innovation, which has enhanced Members' ability to resolve disputes and helped to clarify 
the meaning of covered agreements".  However,  the proponent apparent ly believed there were 
important rulings of the Appellate Body that did not need to be implemented.  In addition to 
submitting repetitive and empty status reports, the defe ndant in this, and other disputes, had decided 
to ignore the DSB's rulings.  Although the DSB was not the right forum to di scuss the changes to the 
current dispute settlement system, it seemed necessary to make it clear that the first and most important step to take before modifying  the DSU was to ensure compliance with the rulings made to 
date.  Any attempts to change the current DSU provisions would be worth little if the DSB became 
inefficient – as had happened in some cases – due to th e lack of political will of some Members, and if 
the principle of prompt compliance with its decisi ons was violated.  The enactment of Section 211 
prevented all efforts to register and renew certain  Cuban trademarks, such as the well-known Havana 
Club rum brand, which had been duly registered in the United States since 1976.  The Havana Club 
trademark was registered in 124 countries and its sales in 2008 experienced a growth of 13 per cent, 
which attested to its broad international recogn ition as a high quality Cuban brand.  Despite the 
current crisis, the sales of this pr oduct would continue to increase.  The fact that this product could not 
be sold on US territory due to the commercial, financial and economic bloc kade was not enough, and 
the US authorities had decided to attack the intell ectual property rights of the Cuban owner.  That 
action had serious implications and was contrary to international law.  Recently, an anti-Cuban 
television channel that broadcasted from the United States had interviewed an expert in intellectual 
property complaints.  That expert had mentioned two el ements that should not be forgotten.  First, he 
had said that US companies had always been allowed to  register their trademarks in Cuba and then he 
had added that one of the reasons for this was to avoid piracy.  It was clearly impossible, even for 
those who were more hostile towards Cuba, to igno re the role played by the Cuban authorities in 
relation to US intangible assets.  Cuba respected intellectual property right s under both national and 
international legislations.  Although US trademarks distinguished products that could not be sold in 
Cuba due to the blockade, their re gistration was maintained and they were renewed every ten years, as 
provided for in Cuba's trademark legislation.  Once ag ain, Cuba urged the parties to settle this dispute, 
without further delay, in accordance with the rights of  the Cuban owners of this trademark.  Such a 
settlement would constitute nothing more than comp liance with the rulings made by the Appellate 
Body seven years ago and with various internationa l agreements that governed this matter.  It was 
time for the parties to take steps th at reflected their real commitment to the protection of intellectual 
property rights across the world.  
6. The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
 said that, once again, his 
delegation had taken note of the stat us report submitted by the United States, and wished to be fully 
associated with the statement made by Cuba at th e present meeting.  Trade was fundamental to the 
development of countries, and un ilateral measures such as the one imposed by the United States 
against Cuba, were without justification.  Not only had it distorted Cuba's trade, it had also created 
problems that were related to human rights i ssues by seriously undermining Cuba's economy on 
which the living standard of the population depended.  Through the Petrocaribe and Alba initiatives, 
Venezuela had shown solidarity with Cuba in an effo rt to alleviate the nega tive impact of the US 
blockade, and this solidarity had been amply repaid in the form of support for the implementation of a 
number of social programmes, which had contributed to integration and poverty relief in Venezuela, 
demonstrating that the agreements should go beyond the liberalization of trade and the opening up of 
markets.  At the regular DSB meetings, the Un ited States had been pushing forward the deadlines WT/DSB/M/266 
Page 4  
 
  granted for the revocation of Section 211.  At the end of 2008, and the beginning of the current year, 
the United States had informed the DSB that it was wa iting for the new Congress to  take up its duties.  
Three months had now gone by, and the only change  in this respect was that the expectations 
generated by the new administration had now become history.  One of the most positive aspects of the 
WTO was its contractual nature, which was closely related to the principle of commitment that 
resided in Members' willingness to become part of the multilateral trading system and their intention 
to comply with the WTO rules.  However, viola tions of those rules, as the United States was doing, 
caused irreparable damage to the system because it showed that by throwing its weight around, not 
only could a country simply ignore UN decisions, fo r example on the blockade on Cuba, which had 
repeatedly been condemned by the UN, but it coul d do the same at the WTO, with equal indifference 
and arrogance.  Once again, Venezuela urged the United States to revoke Section 211.  By doing so, 
the United States would immediately bring considerable benefit to Cuba.  
7. The representative of Uruguay
 said that his country had, on a number of occasions, expressed 
its deep systemic concern about the US long-standing failure to comply with the DSB's rulings in this 
dispute.  Uruguay believed that Members, in par ticular big trading powers, must comply promptly 
with the DSB's recommendations.  This was an essential factor in ensuring not only the smooth 
functioning and credibility of the dispute settleme nt system, but the legal security and effective 
balance of rights and obligations provided under the multilateral trading system.  In this respect, 
Uruguay urged the United States, more strongly than on previous occasions, to make the new US administration aware of the need to give credibility to its announcement that it would prioritize the implementation of its multilateral commitments, and to do its utmost to comply with the DSB's 
recommendations in this dispute.  Uruguay sincer ely believed that it would not be appropriate for 
international public opinion to pe rceive the key international player as deciding whether or not to 
comply with its international commitments wh ile taking issue with the implementation of 
commitments assumed by other Members. 
8. The representative of India
 said that her country thanked the United States for its status report 
and the statement made at the present meeting.  As  stated before, India remained concerned about the 
non-compliance situation in this dispute.  India ur ged the United States to fully implement the DSB's 
recommendations in this dispute. 
9. The representative of Ecuador  said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report and supported the statements  by Cuba and other Members.  All Members were required to 
respect the WTO Agreements.  Ecuador recalled, on ce again, that the United States, both at home and 
in the various WTO Councils and Committees, cl osely monitored the commitments undertaken by 
Members, particularly in the area of intellectual pr operty rights.  Ecuador, therefore, expected it to set 
a good example in this case.  After the dis putes on bananas and hormones, this was the 
longest-standing pending dispute in the WTO and one  in respect of which all WTO Members should 
express their concern.  Ecuador, once again, urge d the United States to comply with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings and to promptly repeal Section 211.  
10. The representative of China  said that his country thanked the United States for its status report 
and the statement made at the present meeting.  Ho wever, it was regrettable that the US Congress had 
not begun to consider any implemen tation action pertinent to this case,  despite the endeavours of the 
US administration.  As previous speakers had corre ctly pointed out, the situation of non-compliance 
was seriously damaging the authority of the TR IPS Agreement and the creditability of the WTO 
dispute settlement system.  Therefore, China supporte d the statements made by the EC and Cuba, and 
urged the United States to implement th e DSB's decision without further delay. 
11. The representative of Bolivia  said that, once again, his delegation wished to express its 
concern at the lack of progress in this dispute.  Bolivia had already referred, on numerous occasions, 
to the dangerous consequences of non-compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings for  WT/DSB/M/266 
 Page 5 
 
 
  this Organization.  Bolivia called upon the United States to transmit to its relevant authorities, and to 
the US Congress, the numerous and repeated concer ns expressed by various Members in this forum 
and to lift the restrictions imposed under Section 211, so as to help maintain the integrity of the WTO 
system.  Finally, she said that her country supported the statements made by Cuba and other Members. 
12. The representative of Viet Nam
 said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report.  The dispute settlement mechanism was a ve ry important mechanism to ensure the balance 
between the rights and obligations of the WTO Members.  Therefore, like other Members, Viet Nam urged the United States to comply with the DSB' s rulings and recommendations in this dispute. 
13. The representative of Brazil
 said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report pertaining to this dispute.  Brazil continued to be concerned about the non-compliance situation 
in this dispute.  Full implementation of the DSB's recommendations was still expected.  
14. The representative of Mexico  recalled that Articles 3.3 and 21.1 of the DSU stated, 
respectively, that prompt compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings was essential to the effective functioning of the WTO and to ensuring  effective resolution of disputes to the benefit of 
all Members.  Mexico urged the parties to this dis pute to comply with those principles and to take the 
necessary measures to comply with the DSB's recommendations both to ensure the effective 
functioning of the WTO and effective resolution of disputes to the benefit of all Members. 
15. The representative of Thailand
 said that his delegation remained positive regarding this 
matter.  Thailand urged the United States to take a ll necessary steps to comply with its obligations in 
this dispute as soon as possible.   
16. The representative of Chile  said that, at the past several DS B meetings, his country had been 
stating its concern about this dispute and the othe r disputes examined under Agenda Item 1, regarding 
the lack of compliance.  The fact that those disputes remained unresolved constituted a dangerous 
situation for the multilateral system.  In this resp ect, Chile urged the parties to promptly take the 
necessary measures to ensure full compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings. 
17. The representative of Argentina  said that his county wished to join other delegations who had 
called for prompt compliance with the DSB's recommenda tions and rulings in this case.  In particular, 
Argentina wished to be associated w ith the statement made by Uruguay. 
18. The representative of the United States  said that, in response to the comments made by some 
Members about the US compliance record, the facts simply did not support those assertions.  The record was clear:  the United States had come into  compliance, fully and promptly, in the vast 
majority of its disputes.  As for the remaining fe w instances where efforts to do so had not yet been 
entirely successful, the United States had been  working actively towards compliance. 
19. 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.76) 
20. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS184/ 15/Add.76, 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. WT/DSB/M/266 
Page 6  
 
  21. The representative of the United States
 said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 9 March 2009, in accordance with Artic le 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 docum ent WT/DS184/15/Add.3.  With respect to the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB that had not already been addressed by the US authorities 
by 23 November 2002, the US administration would work with the US Congress with respect to appropriate statutory measures that would resolve this matter. 
22. The representative of Japan
 said that his country thanked the United States for its statement 
and the most recent status report.  The United States had reported that it had taken certain measures to 
implement part of the DSB's recommendations in November 2002.  Japan trusted that the 
United States would soon be in a position to report to the DSB on tangible progress for the remaining 
part of the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  A full and prompt implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings was "essential to the effective functioning of the WTO and the 
maintenance of a proper balance of th e rights and obligations of Members".1  Japan hoped that the 
United States would fully implement the DSB's recommendations in this long-standing dispute 
without further delay.  
23. 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.51) 
24. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS160/ 24/Add.51, 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. 
25. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 9 March 2009, 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. 
26. The representative of the European Communities  said that, yet again, the United States had 
reported on continued non-compliance.  The EC did not see any indication that action was being 
contemplated.  This continued to be unacceptable.   
27. 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.14 – WT/DS292/31/Add.14 – WT/DS293/31/Add.14) 
28. The Chairman
 drew attention to document WT/D S291/37/Add.14 – WT/DS292/31/Add.14 – 
WT/DS293/31/Add.14, which contained the status re port by the EC 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. 
                                                      
1 Article 3.3 of the DSU.  WT/DSB/M/266 
 Page 7 
 
 
  29. The representative of the European Communities  said that recent developments had shown 
that the EC regulatory procedures on biotech products continued to work normally.  The Commission had authorized a GM oilseed rape (T-45) on 10 Ma rch, and would soon authorize a GM carnation.  
This would make 21 authorizations since the est ablishment of the Panel.  The Commission would 
soon transmit to the Council draft Commission's d ecisions, on authorization of cultivation of GM 
maize 1507 and Bt11, following the vote at the regulatory Committee on 25 February (no qualified 
majority).  The Commission was al so expected to adopt draft authorization decisions on two other 
maize applications, which had received a positive opinion by EFSA (maize 59122×NK603 and 
MON89034). 
30. With respect to national bans, the Commission had transmitted draft decisions requesting all 
measures currently prohibiting cultivation of GM maize MON810 (FR, HU, EL and AT) to be lifted.  
The Council had rejected Commission proposals on th e Hungarian and Austrian safeguard measures 
(2 March).  A vote at the regulatory Committee on th e French and Greek measures had resulted in no 
qualified majority (16 February).  The EC believed that further progress in such a sensitive area could 
only be achieved through dialogue a nd cooperation.  The EC remained  open to continue discussions 
with the three complainants. 
31. The representative of Argentina
 said that his country welcomed the EC's status report.  
Argentina had shown a great deal of flexibility in this dispute, as demonstrated by its decision to 
extend the period for implementation until 30 June 2009 .  However, despite the readiness shown by 
the parties, and the progress made thus far, a nu mber of concerns remained regarding the approval 
process, the prohibitions, which were still in force,  and the attitude of certain member States.  
Nevertheless, Argentina would conti nue working with the parties, in the same constructive spirit, with 
a view to achieving the full implementation of the recommendations adopted by the DSB. 
32. The representative of Canada  said that her country thanked the EC for its statement.  Canada 
was pleased that the canola event T-45 had be en approved by the European Commission on 
10 March 2009.  Canada appreciated the suppor t of the European Commission during this long 
process and valued the constructive dialogue it had ha d to date with the EC.  However, Canada was 
concerned that it had taken over three years for T-45 to be approved – this fact highlighted Canada's 
deeper concern that undue delays were reappearing in the EC approval system for biotech products.  
Canada's on-going concerns included continuing memb er State bans that were currently in place on 
the cultivation and marketing of EU-wide approved bi otech products.  There remained a risk that 
other member States would choose to put in place new bans.  Canada would continue to monitor the 
situation closely. 
33. The representative of the United States  said that his country thanked the EC for its status 
report, and the statement made at the present meeting.   As noted at prior meetings, the United States 
had serious concerns with the current operation of the system established by the EC for the purpose of 
reviewing and approving new biotech products.  On -going delays in the EC system were causing 
substantial trade harm to US producers.  The EC 's backlog of approximately 50 pending biotech 
product applications was even greater than the b acklog that had existed at the beginning of the 
reasonable period of time for compliance in November 2006.  The United States understood that the EC was asserting progress because it had recently appr oved one of the 50 pendi ng applications.  But 
the product that reportedly had been approved – rapeseed T-45 – only served to exemplify the 
problems in the EC system.  The application for T-45 had first been submitted in February 1999 – 
more than ten years ago.  By now, the variet y was obsolete and no longer marketed;  its only 
significance was the possible presence of negligible amounts of obsolete T-45 in shipments of currently-produced varieties of biotech rapeseed.  If the EC's actions in banning products until they 
reached obsolescence were tolerated, Members woul d never obtain the market access to which they 
were entitled under the WTO Agreement.  The Unite d States again urged the EC to take prompt 
action on the many pending applications for biotech products that were currently produced in the WT/DSB/M/266 
Page 8  
 
  United States and other WTO Members.  The United States thanked the DSB for its attention to this 
matter.   
34. The DSB took note
 of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(e) European Communities – Regime for the importation, sale and distribution of bananas:  
Second recourse to Article 21.5 by Ecuador:  Status report by the European Communities 
(WT/DS27/96/Add.2) 
35. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS27/ 96/Add.2, which contained the status 
report by the European Communities on progr ess in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in the case concerni ng the European Communities' regime for the 
importation, sale and distribution of bananas. 
36. The representative of the European Communities  said that the EC stood ready to implement 
the recommendation made in Ecuador's Report by mean s of modifying its bound duty.  The EC still 
hoped that this rebinding could be made in the c ontext of a comprehensive agreement with Latin 
American suppliers, an agreement that had been sought since the EC had initiated GATT 
Article XXVIII negotiations back in  2004.  The EC was fully committed to finding very soon a final 
solution to this long-standing "banana saga".  The EC had already resumed negotiations, not only with 
Ecuador but also with other MFN suppliers, in the hope of reaching an agreement regarding the 
rebinding of the EC tariff on bananas.  The requ ests made to the EC to simply sign the draft 
agreement established in the margins of the 2008 July  Ministerial Meeting simply disregarded the fact 
that the signature of that agreement was subj ect to the successful adoption of DDA Agriculture 
modalities.  Having said that, the EC was now enga ged in negotiations to discuss the possibility of 
concluding a draft agreement with a number of el ements based on the July 2008 text, subject to 
necessary adjustments to the current situation,  and hoped that all ba nana suppliers would 
constructively engage in the necessary discussions. 
37. The representative of Ecuador  said that his country thanked the EC for its status report.  In 
that report, the EC, once again, failed to give any indication of the date by which it hoped to comply 
with the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this  case.  Furthermore, the EC again denied the 
existence of the Geneva Agreement on Bananas reached with the principal Latin American 
MFN suppliers on 27 July 2008.  Nor did the EC express any readiness to honour that Agreement.  
The EC had recently made a proposal to Latin Amer ican MFN suppliers that was characterized by:  
(i) its lack of any balance between the commitment s that were expected of MFN suppliers and those 
to be undertaken by the EC in exchange;  (ii) the linkage of tariff cuts to the uncertain conclusion of 
Doha Round modalities;  (iii) the introduction of further conditions in areas unrelated to compliance 
with the DSB's recommendations and rulings and the compensation under Articles XXIV and XXVIII 
of the GATT 1994;  and (iv) the way in which the validity of the proposed agreement was made 
subject to the conclusion of a parallel agreem ent with another Member, amongst other issues.  
Ecuador again called upon the EC to sign the Banana  Agreement of 27 July 2008 and not to open up 
Pandora's box of uncertain consequences that could prompt Ecuador to exercise its cross-retaliation 
rights or bring renewed complaints or even seek bette r conditions in terms of the final entry tariff, and 
shorter implementation periods.  Ecuador pointed out that a unilateral decision by the EC in this case 
would have serious political, legal and systemic impl ications.  Finally, Ecuador was surprised that the 
EC had, once again, refused to submit a status report on the DSB's recommendations and rulings in 
the proceedings brought by the United States unde r Article 21.5 of the DSU.  The DSB Members 
should be concerned about this situation. 
38. The representative of Honduras  said that, once again, his country was compelled to express its 
concern about the most recent stat us report submitted by the EC, and about what appeared to be the  WT/DSB/M/266 
 Page 9 
 
 
  EC's approach to the issue of compliance.  As ot her Members had pointed out, the EC's reporting and 
compliance obligations under Article 21.6 of th e DSU were applicable to the rulings and 
recommendations resulting from the 1997 Bananas III  dispute,  and not just to one review procedure 
adopted since the original rulings had been issued .  The Appellate Body ha d confirmed that the EC 
had not yet implemented the rulings and recommendati ons in the Bananas III dispute.  It had also 
confirmed that the original rulings would remain in effect until the EC proved that it had complied 
with them fully, which it had not yet done.  Hondur as, as an original compla inant in the Bananas III 
dispute, and willing to safeguard its interests in th is dispute, requested, once again, that any future 
references to this matter under the Agenda ite m concerning "Surveillance of Implementation of 
Recommendations Adopted by the DSB", and any futu re EC status reports should duly acknowledge 
the fact that the EC had yet to comply with the rulings and recommendations in the Bananas III 
dispute.  As for the description of "progress" submitted before the DSB in the current month, 
Honduras welcomed the EC's interest in concludi ng an agreement on bananas "promptly", but asked 
the EC to explain exactly what it meant by a "com prehensive agreement".  If the EC meant that any 
arrangement in respect of bananas had to be linke d to future developments in other WTO bodies, and 
that in the absence of any such developments th e EC would never comply with the rulings and 
recommendations in question, then this approach to  compliance would, in fact, have nothing to do 
with the DSB.  If the EC meant that other products, completely unrelated to the bananas dispute, had 
to be linked to the bananas settlement, and that the EC  would never comply if they were not, then this 
would, once again, run counter to the unconditional obligation that the DSU had imposed on the EC to 
bring itself into compliance in this dispute.  If th e EC meant that the tariff cuts promised under the 
27 July Agreement had to be diluted or lowered, despite the setbacks that the EC had subsequently 
suffered in two compliance actions, this would also  reflect the EC's worrying indifference towards 
recent rulings and its compliance obligations.  Prompt compliance was not a matter left to the discretion of the complying Member, nor could it be s ubject to other trade objectives or other factors.  
If the EC was genuinely interested in having an e ffective multilateral system, one capable of putting 
an end to protectionism and inspiring confidence in  the WTO, the EC must do its part by bringing 
itself into compliance, thus ending what w as undoubtedly the longest standing case of non-
compliance that the system had ever witnessed.  
39. The representative of Nicaragua
 said that his country regretted that the EC was still refusing 
to comply with the recommendations in this 17-yea r-long dispute.  Although the EC recognized its 
renewed obligation to bring itself into conformity , and knew that the reasonable period of time for 
complying had expired, Nicaragua did not yet see that  the EC demonstrated any urgency or diligence 
in meeting its obligation.  On the contrary, the EC seemed to be making compliance contingent upon 
what it called a "comprehensive agreement", one which would not come into effect unless certain Doha-related outcomes were to be decided in the future by the Membership as a whole.  The DSU 
provisions did not allow compliance to be made c ontingent on subsequent action by the Membership 
in a broader sphere.  Under these rules the EC, an d the EC alone, was responsible for reducing its 
tariff and eliminating any tariff discrimination promptly, in strict conformity with its GATT 
obligations.  It was high time that the EC informed  the DSB exactly how and when it intended to bind 
its MFN tariff at the considerably lower rate require d by the WTO rules.  It was also high time that the 
EC should let other Members know how and when it would remedy the tariff discrimination that 
continued to put Nicaragua at an insurmountable di sadvantage.  In this regard, the EC referred to 
"new trading arrangements" with the ACP countries,  but Nicaragua did not consider this unexplained 
reference to be appropriate in terms of compliance with the obligations laid down in Article 21.6 of 
the DSU, which required due clarity and specificity  in demonstrating effective compliance with the 
provisions of Article I of the GATT.  With its negative attitude towards transparency in respect of specific actions taken to comply, and its tendency to continue linking compliance to future Doha 
outcomes, which had nothing to do with the banana i ssue and which would, in addition, have to be 
approved by the entire Membership, the EC was, in effect, making it clear to the DSB that it intended to continue refusing to comply until it considered th at its broader objectives had been fulfilled.  This 
position did not honour the rules governing compliance and was in fact undermining them. When the WT/DSB/M/266 
Page 10  
 
  EC called upon the Membership to refrain from taki ng WTO-inconsistent measures in these difficult 
economic times, the EC should perhaps remind itself of its own obligation to honour the rules and 
bring itself into conformity in respect of the bananas case. 
40. The representative of the Dominican Republic
, speaking on behalf of the ACP countries, said 
that, at the DSB meetings on 11 December 2008  and 19 February 2009, the ACP countries had 
registered their disagreement on substance with ce rtain conclusions reached by the Panel and the 
Appellate Body in this dispute.  As had been stated on those occasions, the ACP countries respected 
the need to implement final decisions of the DSB.  However, of the three substantive legal issues 
litigated in this proceeding, only the finding of a vi olation of the EC's obligations under Article II of 
the GATT 1994 awaited implementation.  The Domini can Republic recalled that the Panel and the 
Appellate Body had concluded that the EC's schedul e at this time still committed the EC to an out-of-
quota tariff of €680/mt and a TRQ of 2.2 million tonnes at a tariff of €75/mt.  As had previously been stated, the ACP countries could live with a faithful and literal implementation of those conclusions.  
As reflected in its status report, the EC aimed to achieve compliance, and hence implementation, by changing its tariff structure through negotiations with  the MFN suppliers, includ ing the complainant.  
If that led to a reduction of applied duties, it was im portant to keep in mind that this would happen for 
reasons other than the bananas dispute, because the DSB's recommendations in this dispute did not 
require any overall reduction of average tariffs; nor  did the negotiations under Article XXVIII of the 
GATT.  Any pressure towards a reduction of the EC's banana tariffs found its rationale exclusively in 
the DDA.  The ACP countries actively supported effort s to move towards an effective solution with 
regard to the EC bananas tariff regime, and to ensu re that the steps eventually agreed upon were taken 
for the right reasons, anchored and balanced out in the right context. 
41. The representative of Panama 
said that his country took note of the EC's offer in its status 
report to "re-engage immediatel y" in negotiations on a "compreh ensive agreement" that would 
establish "among other elements, the level of the new EC bound tariff duty".  As Panama had 
informed the EC on several occasions, Panama was e qually prepared to "re-engage immediately", but 
for the purpose of ratifying the Agreement it had reac hed with the EC in July 2008.  The EC's status 
report referred to a very different kind of agreemen t.  It envisioned a "comprehensive" package where 
tariff cuts might or might not be granted de pending on contingencies far beyond the scope and 
involvement of the DSB.  Under Article 21 of the DSU, the EC's Bananas III obligation was to lower 
its bananas tariff to the proper bound rate, and to rid its import arrangement of unfair discrimination.  
Other more "comprehensive" issues, including thos e involving products well beyond bananas, had no 
place under the DSU.  Under Article 3 of the DSU, any mutually agreed banana solution should be 
between the EC and the MFN parties to this long dispute.  When the party that had lost 13 WTO 
proceedings on the same matter began to attach to the issue of compliance "comprehensive" 
prerequisites that had nothing to do with the DSU, it was fair to ask whether that party truly intended 
to bring itself into prompt compliance, as required under Article 21 of the DSU.  The EC had 
promised in recent public statements to "lead by example ... to strengthen the rules-based system".  
Panama applauded that objective and reminded the EC that the rules-based system provided that prompt compliance with the DSB's recommendations  and rulings was essential to the effective 
functioning of the WTO and to the maintenanc e of a proper balance between the rights and 
obligations of Members.  This was all the more  true when the illegal measures demanding compliance 
continued to harm the interests of developing-coun try Members.  The EC could help reaffirm the 
importance of effective multilateralism, and its lead ership on this front, by promptly and properly 
redressing its own long legacy of non-compliance in the Bananas III dispute. 
42. The representative of Colombia
 said that his country welcomed the status report submitted by 
the EC and noted its intention to bring itself in to compliance with the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings by modifying its scheduled tariff commit ments on bananas.  Colombia hoped that prompt 
action would be taken in this rega rd.  Although the EC had entered into contact with Latin American 
MFN banana suppliers, negotiations had not yet begun.  The EC's non-compliance with the agreement  WT/DSB/M/266 
 Page 11 
 
 
  concluded in July 2008 continued to be an obstacle to achieving the climate of trust that was needed.  
Colombia hoped that a way would soon be found to be gin good faith negotiations that would lead to a 
comprehensive solution to the bananas dispute.  
43. The representative of Guatemala  said that his country regretted that this matter had been 
brought back on the DSB's Agenda.  This was even more regrettable since th e EC had, and continued 
to have, at its disposal, the perfect instrument with which to resolve not only the dispute under 
consideration, but also other disputes under the WTO with regard to bananas.  The instrument in 
question was the Geneva Agreement on Trade in Bananas of 27 July 2008.  Guatemala, therefore, 
urged the EC, once again, to reflect upon its position and to comply promptly with the recommendations and rulings of the Panel and the Ap pellate Body.  Guatemala also hoped that the EC 
would provide more specific information on the im plementation of the recommendations and rulings 
contained in the adopted Reports.  
44. The representative of Cameroon 
said that his delegation wished to support the statement made 
by the Dominican Republic, on behalf of the Group of  ACP countries.  At the same time, Cameroon 
was pleased that because there were no negotiations , one could assume that the fact that Cameroon 
had not been asked to participate in any did not me an that Cameroon was late or that it had been 
sidelined.  His delegation wished to refer to th e last point mentioned by the Dominican Republic, 
concerning efforts to find an effective solution.  Came roon considered that an ef fective solution to this 
dispute would have to be balanced and satisfactor y to all Members.  That, in fact, was why his 
delegation had raised the issue of participation in the negotiations:  if ther e were no negotiations, all 
the better, since there would have to be negotiations for all parties to be associated.  That, at least, was 
Cameroon's view, which his delegation had always stat ed and repeated it again at the present meeting.  
In short, as Cameroon had already mentioned in ot her DSB meetings, an effective and satisfactory 
solution could not be found without the involvement of all interested parties.  His delegation was 
ready to cooperate to that end. 
45. The representative of the United States  said that, for the most part, his delegation could refer 
delegations back to the statements that the United States had made at the past two DSB meetings, but 
would also like to stress a few points at the present meeting.  For the third time, the EC had filed a 
status report that mentioned only Ec uador's proceeding.  The EC had st ated that there was no longer a 
compliance issue with respect to the recommendations  and rulings that the United States and the other 
complaining parties obtained because the measure at  issue in the recent compliance proceedings had 
ceased to exist.  The DSB had not adopted any pa nel or Appellate Body report finding that the EC 
was in compliance with its WTO obligations with respect to the EC bananas import regime.  The 
United States had no specific information on how the EC was in compliance with its obligations under 
Articles I and XIII of the GATT 1994, although the EC  had made references to  agreements negotiated 
or being negotiated with other WTO Members.  Th is was information which the United States would 
have expected to receive through the status reports in  this dispute, but the EC's status report contained 
no information on this topic.  If the EC believed it was in compliance, the United States would greatly 
appreciate receiving this information so that it could see whether it could join in that belief. 
46. With respect to the GATT Article II incons istency found in the most recent compliance 
proceeding brought by Ecuador, the EC, in its most recent status report, continued to refer to 
"concluding promptly a comprehensive agreemen t on bananas that would establish, among other 
elements, the level of the new EC bound tariff duty" .  The United States once again reminded the EC 
that it was required to reduce its bananas tariff as a dispute settlement compliance matter, independent 
of whatever other goals it wanted to achieve in a much broader and distinct set of negotiations.  The 
EC's reasonable period of time for compliance expire d a long time ago – in fact, more than 10 years 
ago.  What was more, the commercial impact of the EC's non-compliance over this very long period 
was undeniably large and damaging to a number of WTO Members.  The United States looked 
forward to receiving a comprehensive status report with a comprehensive explanation of how the EC WT/DSB/M/266 
Page 12  
 
  intended to come into substantive compliance with  its obligations, as well as a description of the 
progress it was making towards that end. 
47. The representative of the European Communities
 said that he wanted to respond to two 
points.  First, in response to Ecuador saying that there was no negotiation underway he said that, to set 
the record straight, the parties had spent the bette r part of 13 March 2009 to discuss intensely.  The 
EC would let others decide how this  had to be qualified.  Thus the EC was in no way just sitting back, 
but was engaged in intense discussions with the par ties concerned.  Second, the Appellate Body had 
confirmed that no recommendation, as opposed to findings, was warranted with respect to the measure at issue in this disput e, since the measure was no longer in existence (paragraph 479 of the 
AB Report).  The Appellate Body had referred generally to the prin ciple that, in Article 21.5 DSU 
procedures, original DSB recommendations and rulings  "remain in effect until the EC brings itself 
into substantive compliance".  However, there was no longer a compliance issue here, since the 
measure at fault had ceased to exist in 2007.  The cu rrent tariff treatment of bananas of ACP origin 
was a completely different measure, based on the negotiation of free trade agreements (FTAs) with the ACP countries concerned.  Tariff preference s could equally result from the FTAs negotiations 
with Latin American suppliers. 
48. The representative of Ecuador
 said that his delegation, once again, reiterated that there was no 
negotiations under way.  When Ecuador had participat ed in meetings convened by the EC, including 
the one referred to by the EC, Ecuador had stated in  writing that this was not a negotiating exercise.  
This had been put in writing and, th erefore, it could not be disputed.  He said that the proposal that the 
ACP countries could live with had already been cond emned by the DSB.  Ecuador, once again, stated 
that the ACP countries could not participate in any negotiation unless they were complainants in this 
case or unless they had requested compensation under Article XXVIII of the GATT 1994.  The MFN 
suppliers had never been consulte d on the tariff level for bananas, which was granted to the ACP 
countries. 
49. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(f) Brazil – Measures affecting imports of retreaded tyres:  Status report by Brazil 
(WT/DS332/19) 
50. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS332/ 19, which contained the status report 
by Brazil on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings in the case concerning Brazil's measures affecting imports of retreaded tyres. 
51. The representative of Brazil
 said that, on 9 March 2009, Brazil had provided the DSB with a 
status report in the above-mentioned dispute, in acco rdance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  The report 
described the actions taken by Brazil regarding the implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings following the adoption of the Reports of the Panel and the Appellate Body.  Due to recent 
developments, Brazil wished to provide the DSB Members with an update concerning the judicial 
action of the Supreme Court mentioned in paragraphs  4 to 7 of the status report (ADPF 101), initiated 
by the Executive Branch with a view to preventing judges and lower courts from issuing injunctions 
allowing imports of used tyres in Brazil, as well  as to revoke injunctions already granted.  As 
anticipated in paragraph 6 of the status report, the judgment of the Supreme Courts in the tyres case 
had been initiated on 11 March 2009.  The Reporting Judge's vote was widely favourable to the 
request of the Executive Branch, acknowledging the relevance of the import ban on used tyres to 
Brazil's comprehensive strategy to deal with waste tyres.  Brazil wished to inform the DSB that the 
video recording of the session of 11 March was public ly available on the Supreme Court's website and 
that Brazil would  naturally be glad to provide th e relevant Internet links to anyone interested in 
seeing, viewing and hearing the whole proceedings.  In any event, the proceedings before the  WT/DSB/M/266 
 Page 13 
 
 
  Supreme Court had not been completed that same da y due to the request of one of the 11 Justices of 
the Court to review the record of the case, whic h was a regular procedure in Brazil's and other 
countries' judicial systems.  The judgment would be  resumed as soon as the record was returned to the 
plenary of the Court. As stated in the status report, Brazil believed that the judgment of ADPF 101 
constituted a fundamental step in the strengthening of Brazil's environmental policy concerning tyres, 
as well as for the implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute. 
52. The representative of the European Communities  said that his delegation took note of Brazil's 
first status report submitted by Brazil and what Brazil considered it had done, in order to work 
towards WTO compliance, since its import ban on re treaded tyres was found incompatible with the 
WTO Agreement.  The EC noted that Brazil had admitted not having achieve d compliance to date, 
despite the expiry of the reasonable period of time on 17 December 2008.  As regards Brazil's efforts 
towards implementation, the EC maintained its  position, expressed at the 15 January 2008 DSB 
meeting.  The EC was neither convinced nor satisfied  with Brazil's actions.  The fastest and best way 
to do away with the on-going and WTO-incompatible  discrimination would be to lift the import ban 
on retreaded tyres.  That would also ensure that Brazil respected its Mercos ur obligations, confirmed 
by binding arbitral rulings.  The EC would be inter ested to hear what exactly Brazil intended to set up 
when it had referred to a "common trade regime for ty res with its Mercosur partners".  The EC needed 
to stress again that the DSB's rulings and recomme ndations in this case did not permit keeping the 
import ban in place while maintaining the possibility for intra-Mercosur trade in retreads.  The EC 
emphasized again that it was strongly in favour of environmental and public health protection.  It 
would, therefore, by no means want to discourag e Brazil from doing more for the protection of its 
citizens against diseases spread by mosquitoes that br eed in abandoned waste tyres.  For that purpose, 
however, much better, more effective measures were available as compared with the selective 
targeting of certain imported prod ucts that did not actually contribute to the problem.  The EC 
deplored the on-going resort, including by Braz ilian governmental representatives, to the polemic 
allegation that the EC intended to  export its waste to Brazil.  The EC managed, recycled and 
recovered waste tyres without relying on exportatio n.  Moreover, like the overwhelming majority of 
WTO Members, the EC did not ban the importation of retreaded tyres.  On the contrary, the EC imported retreaded tyres from other countries, incl uding Brazil.  The EC, therefore, called upon Brazil 
to end, without further delay, its arbitrary and di scriminatory practices regarding retreaded tyres, and 
to do so by removing the import ban. 
53. The representative of Uruguay
 said that his country thanked Brazil for its status report.  
Uruguay stressed its full readiness to agree to a co mmon trade regime for tyres under the Mercosur 
system.  This, without affecting Uruguay's rights, would contribute to a speedy compliance with the 
DSB's decisions in this dispute. 
54. The representative of Paraguay  said that his country thanked Brazil for its status report.  
Paraguay would be willing to con tinue discussions regarding a co mmon regional policy concerning 
this matter and urged Brazil to continue in that direction.  
55. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
2. United States – Continued existence and application of zeroing methodology 
(a) Implementation of the recommendations of the DSB 
56. The Chairman  recalled that in accordance with the DSU provisions, the DSB was required to 
keep under surveillance the implementation of reco mmendations and rulings of the DSB in order to 
ensure effective resolution of disputes to the benefit of all Members.  In that respect, Article 21.3 of 
the DSU provided that the Member concerned shall in form the DSB, within 30 days after the date of WT/DSB/M/266 
Page 14  
 
  adoption of the panel or Appellate Body report, of its intentions in respect of implementation of the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB.  He reca lled that at its meeting on 19 February 2009, the 
DSB had adopted the Appellate Body Report pertaining to the dispute on:  "United States – Continued 
Existence and Application of Zeroing Methodology " and the Panel Report on the same matter, as 
modified by the Appellate Body Report.  He inv ited the United States to inform the DSB of its 
intentions in respect of implementation of the DSB's recommendations. 
57. The representative of the United States
 said that on 19 February 2009, the DSB had adopted 
the Panel and Appellate Body Reports in the disp ute:  "United States – Continued Existence and 
Application of Zeroing Methodology".  Members would recall that the United States was deeply troubled by the Appellate Body Report in this di spute.  The United States did not, however, seek to 
engage in a further discussion of those concerns at  the present meeting, which had been expressed in 
the US statement to the DSB on 19 February.  As pr ovided in the first sentence of Article 21.3 of the 
DSU, the United States wished to state that it in tended to comply in this dispute with its WTO 
obligations, and would be considering carefully how to do so.  The United States would need a 
reasonable period of time.  
58. The representative of the European Communities
 said that the EC welcomed the US statement 
that the United States intended to implement the DSB' s recommendations and rulings in this dispute.  
The EC noted that the US implementation in this  case involved mainly a recalculation exercise and 
should be completed very quickly.  The EC stood ready to discuss with the United States the appropriate period of time for implementation an d hoped that prompt and full compliance would 
follow. 
59. The DSB took note
 of the statements, and of the information provided by the United States 
regarding its intentions in respect of implementation of the DSB's recommendations. 
3. 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 
60. The Chairman  said that this matter was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
the EC and Japan.  He then invited the respective representatives to speak. 
61. The representative of the European Communities  said that, as his delegation had stated many 
times, illegal distributions of anti-dumping and coun tervailing duties collected on imports made prior 
to 1 October 2007 would continue for an undetermined number of years.  Therefore, the EC wanted to 
ask again the United States when it would stop the tr ansfer of those duties to its industry and finally 
put an end to the condemned measure.  The EC al so renewed its call on the United States to abide by 
its clear obligation under Article 21.6 of the DS U and submit status reports in this dispute. 
62. The representative of Japan  said that the latest distribution for FY20082 showed that the 
CDSOA still remained operational.3  Japan, once again, called on the United States to stop illegal 
distributions and repeal the CDSOA, not just in form  but in substance, so as to resolve this dispute 
once and for all.  Pursuant to Article 21.6 of the DSU, the United States was under obligation to 
                                                      
 2 According to the latest CDSOA Annual Report published by US Customs,  some US$180 million have 
been disbursed for FY 2008.  See US Customs and Border Protection's website  at:  
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/priority_trade/add_cvd/cont_dump/cdsoa_08/fy08_annual_rep/  
 3 In the words of the US Customs , "the distribution process will continue for an undetermined period".  
See US Customs and Border Protection's website at: 
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/priority_trade/add_cvd/cont_dump/cont_dump_faq.xm 1  WT/DSB/M/266 
 Page 15 
 
 
  provide the DSB with a status report in this dispute "until the issue is resolved ".  Japan reserved all its 
rights under the DSU until the United States came into full compliance.  
63. The representative of India  said that her delegation thanked the EC and Japan for bringing this 
issue before the DSB once again.  She reiterated th at the disbursements made by the United States 
under the Byrd Amendment continued to be in forc e affecting the rights of other WTO Members.  
India was concerned that non-compliance by Members led to a growing lack of credibility of the 
WTO dispute settlement system.  India, theref ore, urged the United States to cease its WTO 
inconsistent disbursement. 
64. The representative of Canada  said that her country agreed with the EC and Japan that the 
Byrd Amendment remained subject  to the surveillance by the DS B until the United States ceased to 
administer it. 
65. The representative of China  thanked the EC and Japan for, once again, raising this item at the 
DSB meeting.  China shared the concerns expressed by  previous speakers, and wished to join them in 
urging the United States to comply fully with the DSB's rulings. 
66. The representative of Brazil  said that his country thanked Japan and the EC for bringing this 
issue before the DSB one more time.  Brazil recogni zed that the Byrd Amendment had been repealed 
on 1 October 2007.  However, Brazil was still of the vi ew that the disbursement s by the United States 
to its domestic industry under the CDSOA, with funds  related to duties collected before that date, 
continued to be made, affecting the rights of othe r WTO Members.  Brazil re iterated the need for the 
United States to bring this situation to an end and to fully implement the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings.  
67. The representative of Thailand  said that his country thanked the EC and Japan for continuing 
to bring this matter before the DSB.  Thailand re mained disappointed at the US maintenance of the 
WTO-inconsistent disbursements.  As mentioned at the 19 February 2009 DSB meeting, Thailand 
regretted that the CDSOA remained fully operational,  affecting several million dollars worth of Thai 
exports to the United States, including a product that  would be discussed under the next Agenda item.  
Once again, Thailand urged the United States to cea se the disbursements, repeal the Byrd Amendment 
with immediate practical effect, and resume providing  status reports until such actions were taken and 
this matter was fully resolved. 
68. The representative of the United States  said that, as the United States had already explained at 
previous DSB meetings, the US President had signed the Deficit Reduction Act into law on 
8 February 2006.  That Act included a provisio n repealing the Continued Dumping and Subsidy 
Offset Act of 2000.  Thus, the United States had ta ken all actions necessary to implement the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in these disputes.  He recalled, furthermore, that Members, including 
the EC and Japan, had acknowledged during previous  DSB meetings that the 2006 Deficit Reduction 
Act did not permit the distribution of duties coll ected on goods entered after 1 October 2007.  The 
United States, therefore, did not understand the purpo se for which the EC and Japan had inscribed this 
item on the Agenda of the present meeting.  W ith respect to comments regarding further DSB 
surveillance in this matter, as had already been expl ained at previous DSB meetings, the United States 
failed to see what purpose would be served by fu rther submission of status reports repeating the 
progress the United States made in the implementa tion of the DSB's recommendations and rulings. 
69. The DSB took note  of the statements.  WT/DSB/M/266 
Page 16  
 
  4. United States – Measures concerning the import ation, marketing and sale of tuna and 
tuna products 
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by Mexico (WT/DS381/4) 
70. The Chairman
 drew attention to the communicati on from Mexico contained in document 
WT/DS381/4, and invited the representative of Mexico to speak. 
71. The representative of Mexico  said that, although this was not a new dispute in the context of 
trade between Mexico and the United States, it was the first time that Mexico had filed a request for the establishment of a panel before the DSB.  A lthough the issue of trade barriers imposed by the 
United States on Mexican tuna and tuna products date d back to the GATT-era, the measures that were 
the subject of Mexico's claim, despite having simila r effects, were different and related essentially to 
the US refusal to allow the "dolphin-safe" label to be used for tuna imported from Mexico, which 
hindered the effective marketing of Mexican tuna in the United States.  Mexico and the United States 
had actively participated in the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission and were party to the 
Agreement on the International Dolphin Conservati on Programme (AIDCP), both of which regulated 
tuna fishing in the Eastern Pacific Ocean.  Howe ver, despite the provisions established in both of 
these frameworks, Mexico was not allowed to use the "dolphin-safe" label in the United States 
because US legislation, on the basis of an interp retation by the US courts, prohibited Mexico from 
using that label regardless of whether or not an y harm was inflicted on the dolphins.  The fishing 
methods used by Mexico not only protected dolphins, but were also entirely sustainable in respect of tuna stocks.  In contrast, it had been scientifically established that other tuna fishing methods such as 
those endorsed by the United States, which involved the use of floating objects and which were 
considered "dolphin-safe", endangered practically all types of fish and marine species and could cause 
considerable damage to the ecosystem.  Various e nvironmental NGOs:  e.g. Greenpeace International 
and the World Wildlife Fund supported Mexico's fi shing methods under the AIDCP, since Mexico's 
fishing industry was not only one of the most se lective and respectful in terms of the marine 
environment, but it was also regulated by a transp arent and participatory system unlike any other in 
the world.  The fishing methods employed by the Mexican fleet clearly complied with international 
guidelines on sustainable tuna fishing – guidelin es which the United States had participated in 
establishing.  The US legal system, however, departed from these guidelines and imposed requirements for which there was no scientific basis.   Mexico wished to emphasize that it was not 
trying to undermine protection of the dolphin po pulation or overall conservation of the marine 
ecosystem by pursuing dispute settlement proceedings in the WTO.  On the contrary, this dispute 
would help to further improve the environmental outcomes already achieved, within a framework of 
transparency, responsibility and sustainability.  Me xico, therefore, regretted that it had not been 
possible to find a satisfactory solution to this pr oblem – one which would lead to Mexico losing a 
third of its tuna fleet – at the consultations held with the United States on 17 December 2008 in 
Washington (DC).  As a result of the violations that the US measures had generated under the WTO 
Agreements, the GATT 1994 and the Agreement on Tec hnical Barriers to Trade, Mexico felt obliged 
to request the establishment of a panel in order to resolve this dispute. 
72. The representative of the United States
 said that his country was disappointed that Mexico 
had chosen to move forward with a request for pa nel establishment.  The United States considered its 
dolphin-safe labelling regime central to the protec tion of the dolphin population in the Eastern 
Tropical Pacific ocean.  The United States was confiden t that, if this dispute were to proceed to a 
panel, their dolphin-safe labelling measures that Mexico had challenged w ould be found to be 
consistent with US WTO obligations.  For all of these reasons, the United States strongly urged 
Mexico to reconsider its decision to pursue a panel in this dispute, and said that the United States was 
not in a position to agree to the establishmen t of a panel at the present meeting.  
 
73. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter.  WT/DSB/M/266 
 Page 17 
 
 
  5. United States – Anti-dumping measures on polyethylene retail carrier bags from 
Thailand 
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by Thailand (WT/DS383/2) 
74. The Chairman  drew attention to the communicati on from Thailand contained in document 
WT/DS383/2, and invited the repr esentative of Thailand to speak. 
75. The representative of Thailand  said that his delegation requested that the DSB establish a 
panel to examine the matter described by Thailand  in its request for the establishment of a panel, 
dated 9 March 2009, in document WT/DS383/2.  This dispute involved a challenge by Thailand on 
the use by the United States of zeroing in weighted-a verage to weighted-average price comparisons in 
an original anti-dumping investigation.  The DS B had adopted rulings and recommendations which 
had found the use of this type of zeroing to be WT O-inconsistent on several occasions, such as "US – 
Measures Relating to Shrimp from Thailand"  (DS343), and most recently  "US – Continued Existence 
and Application of Zeroing Methodology"  (DS350).  He informed the DSB that Thailand and the 
United States had reached an agreement regarding accel erated procedures to resolve this dispute.  The 
procedural agreement would be notified to the DS B as soon as possible.  Thailand looked forward to 
working with the Panel, the United States, and any thir d parties that may be interested in participating 
in order to achieve a prompt and satisfactory resolution of this dispute. 
76. The representative of the United States  said that, as noted by Thailand in its statement, the 
United States and Thailand had reached agreement on a procedural framework that should permit the 
resolution of this matter on an expedited basis.  As mentioned by Thailand, the procedural framework 
would shortly be notified to the DSB.  Pursuant to  that agreement, the United States did not object to 
the establishment of a panel at this time.  The United States was pleased to note that it had been 
working closely and constructively with Thailand w ith respect to this matter and looked forward to 
continuing that cooperation as the proceeding moved forward. 
77. The representative of Thailand  said that his country thanked the United States for agreeing to 
the establishment of the panel at the present meetin g.  Thailand appreciated the US constructive and 
cooperative approach to this dispute settlement proceeding. 
78. 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. 
79. The representatives of Argentina , the European Communities , Japan  and Chinese Taipei  
reserved their third-party rights to par ticipate in the Panel's proceedings.  
6. China – Measures affecting the protection and enforcement of intellectual property 
rights 
(a) Report of the Panel (WT/DS362/R) 
80. The Chairman  recalled that, at its meeting on 25 September 2007, the DSB had established a 
panel to examine the complaint by the United States pertaining to this matter.  The Report of the Panel 
contained in WT/DS362/R had been circulated on 26  January 2009 as an unrestricted document.  The 
Report of the Panel was now before the DSB for ad option at the request of the United States.  The 
adoption procedure was without prejudice to the right of Members to express their views on the 
Report. 
81. The representative of the United States  said that his country thanked the members of the Panel 
and the Secretariat staff for their hard work during  this proceeding.  The ma tters at issue in this WT/DSB/M/266 
Page 18  
 
  dispute concerned fundamental provisions in the TRIPS Agreement related to the protection and 
enforcement of intellectual property rights (IPR).  The viability of the enforcement tools provided by 
the TRIPS Agreement was critical to the protection of intellectual property, and to thwarting the 
efforts of those who would infringe.  As had b een observed on other occasions, the United States had 
been concerned for some time that  levels of counterfeiti ng and piracy in China remained unacceptably 
high.  Although the scope of th at concern extended beyond the specific measures at issue in this 
dispute, the United States had br ought this dispute because several aspects of China's legal regime 
were contributing to the larger problem by hinderi ng effective IPR protection and enforcement.  The 
United States was pleased that, in critical respects , the Panel had agreed with its concerns.  The 
Panel's findings also were of great systemic importance and would provide useful guidance to 
Members.  The United States wanted to highlight  certain aspects that Members might find of 
particular interest.  
82. The first matter in this dispute concerned th e denial of copyright protection under China's 
Copyright Law to certain works of creative authorsh ip that did not meet content review standards, 
including movies, music, books, and journals.  China' s blanket denial of copy right protection deprived 
the affected copyright owners of vital enforcem ent tools to prevent unauthorized copies from being 
produced in China and either distributed there or exported to other markets.  The United States was 
pleased with the Panel's findings on this matter.  First, the Panel had found that the denial of 
protection to these works under China's Copyright Law was impermissible under Article 9.1 of the TRIPS Agreement.  That provision incorporated  Article 5(1) of the Berne Convention for the 
Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, which specified that copyright protection, including 
guaranteed exclusive rights, must be afforded to works that were entitled to such protection.  The 
Panel had also specifically recognized the troubleso me commercial uncertainty for authors stemming 
from the prospect of copyright denial.  In this  regard, China's statements during the proceeding
4 that 
"copyright vests at the time a work is created" and that works unreviewed by the content authorities 
were not denied copyright protection under Chinese  law provided new clarity and would be warmly 
welcomed by Members' right-holders seeking to offer legitimate copies or to enforce their rights 
against infringing copies of their co pyrighted works in China.    
83. Second, the Panel had found that China's denial  of protection to works that did not meet 
China's content review standards was incompatib le with Article 41.1 of the TRIPS Agreement 
because, for works denied protection, "enforcement  procedures are not available so as to permit 
effective action" against infringement.  This finding  underscored the role of Article 41.1 in ensuring 
that Members' enforcement tools truly allowed e ffective action against IPR infringement.  The second 
matter at issue in the dispute concerned China's border measures for disposal of infringing goods.  
These measures included provisions for counterfeit goods to be publicly auctioned after only 
removing the infringing trademark.  The Panel found th at these disposal rules were inconsistent with 
Articles 46 and 59 of the TRIPS Agreement concer ning release into the channels of commerce of 
trademark-infringing imports seized at the border.  Indeed, as the Panel had recognized5, these WTO 
standards reflected an understanding that return ing these goods to the marketplace, with only the 
infringing mark removed, could confuse consumers a nd harm the reputation of the legitimate product, 
facilitating – rather than deterring – further act s of infringement involving these goods.  China's 
border enforcement measures also permitted its auth orities to dispose of seized infringing goods by 
donating them to charitable organizations.  In this connection, the United States was pleased to hear 
China's statement during the proceedings that it had imposed a legal responsibility on its Customs 
authorities to ensure that any goods donated under  China's disposal rules would not return to 
commerce or otherwise harm the right-holder.   
                                                      
4 China IPR Panel Report, para. 7.118. 
5 China IPR Panel Report, para. 7.374.  WT/DSB/M/266 
 Page 19 
 
 
  84. With respect to the third matter before the Panel regarding China's legal thresholds for 
criminal prosecution and conviction, the United States was pleased that the Panel had correctly 
concluded that China's criminal thresholds were so high as to exclude application of criminal 
procedures and penalties to some commercial activity and declined to endorse, as requested by China, 
the levels of China's criminal thresholds.  The United States was also very pleased that the Panel 
found that the term "commercial scale" in Article 61  meant that China could not set its thresholds for 
prosecution of piracy and counterfeiting in a manne r that ignored the realities of the commercial 
marketplace.  Similarly, the Panel had clarified that  whether acts of counterfeiting or piracy were "on 
a commercial scale" would depend on a number of fact ors such as the product at  issue – for instance, 
whether it was a designer watch, DVD, or a software  title – and the particular market in which it was 
sold.  The Panel had also made clear that determin ing what constituted "commercial scale" must take 
into account the impact of technological developments, such as digital technology and the Internet, as well as the evolution of commercial marketing practices.   In short, the Panel set forth an analytical 
approach that was in keeping with the dynamic nature  of the marketplace, in particular in the digital 
environment, and should help Me mbers avoid or resolve future disputes concerning obstacles to 
criminal enforcement against counterfeiting a nd piracy.  The United States was disappointed, 
however, that the Panel had found it would need mo re evidence to conclude that the commercial 
activity under China's thresholds was "on a commercial scale".  
85. In sum, while the United States was disappointed with some aspects of the Panel's findings, it 
was nonetheless pleased to request the adoption of the Panel Report at the present meeting.  China had 
repeatedly affirmed its intention to act consiste ntly with WTO rules and to respond swiftly to any 
findings of non-compliance.  In that spirit, and in  light of the pressing problems of IPR infringement, 
the United States looked forward to China moving promptly to implement the DSB's recommendations to bring its measures into complia nce upon adoption of the Report.  China had also 
repeatedly recognized the importance of continuing its work to fight the rampant piracy and counterfeiting in its markets and ha d taken active steps to improve IP R protection and enforcement.  
For example, the United States welcomed China's m ove to drop its criminal copyright threshold from 
1,000 to 500 infringing copies.  The United States, therefore, also looked forward to China's efforts 
going forward to substantially improve IPR protecti on and enforcement, and l ooked forward to further 
engagement with China on these matters. 
86. The representative of China
 said that his country wished to thank the members of the Panel 
for their service and for the evident dedication they  had devoted through the process.  China also 
wished to express its gratitude to the WTO Secretaria t for its diligence in this complex dispute.  China 
and the United States had had a productive a nd cooperative dialogue on intellectual property 
protection;  and China, over the years, had been working vigorously to ensure that its intellectual property enforcement regime met its commitments in th is area.  China did regret that the United States 
had set aside a more cooperative approach with China on intellectual property protection to pursue 
litigation without apparent economic be nefit.  In China's statement to the Panel nearly one year ago, 
China had acknowledged that, like any other country in the world, it did not have a perfect record on 
protection and continued to face difficulties and cha llenges in protecting intellectual property.  But 
China had insisted then, as it did at present, that it had always acted in good faith to implement its legal commitments under the TRIPS Agreement.  Ch ina noted that, on the predominant points of 
contention, the Panel had come to share China's c onviction.  China regarded the Panel's Report as a 
broad affirmation of China's intell ectual property protection regime a nd, therefore, did not intend to 
challenge the Report before the Appellate Body.  Having said that , China did take note of the 
following facts.  First, with respect to Claim One (C riminal Thresholds) of this dispute, the Panel had 
found no fault with China's system of criminal en forcement for intellectual property violations.  The 
Panel had concluded that the United States had failed to establish that China's criminal measures, and 
specifically its use of criminal thresholds, were in consistent with Article 61 or other provisions of 
TRIPS.  WT/DSB/M/266 
Page 20  
 
  87. Second, with respect to Claim Two (Customs Me asures) of this dispute, the Panel had found 
that almost all aspects of China's system for di sposing of infringing goods seized at the border were 
consistent with China's TRIPS obligations.  The Pa nel had determined that TRIPS Article 59 applied 
to goods that were destined for import, not goods that were destined for export, and thus was not 
applicable at all to well over 99 per cent of goods that Chinese Customs had seized.  Indeed, in this 
respect the Panel found that "China's border measur es provide a level of protection higher than the 
minimum standard required by Section 4 of Part III of the TRIPS Agreement" (Panel Report, para. 7.228).  The Panel had further determined th at China's challenged me asures were also fully 
consistent with the first sentence of Article 46, as in corporated into Article 59, and had rejected all of 
the US arguments to the contrary.  In reaching this unsurprising determination, the Panel had held that 
China's steps for disposing of a seized good – dona ting these goods to social welfare agencies, selling 
them to the right-holders, or offering them for auction – were all cons istent with the TRIPS 
Agreement.  The Panel had also held that Chinese Customs had the appropriate  level of authority and 
discretion required under the TRIPS Agreement with r espect to the disposal or destruction of seized 
goods.  The Panel had not shared China's view re garding one aspect of Ch ina's measures for the 
auction of a seized good, holding this aspect inconsis tent with the fourth sentence of Article 46, as 
incorporated into Article 59.  While rejecting th e US contention that seized goods may not be released 
into the channels of commerce, other than in ex ceptional circumstances, the Panel concluded that 
China's authorities did not take su fficient steps beyond ensuring the removal of the infringing mark 
before permitting the release of certain goods into the channels of commerce.  China noted, however, 
that this determination by the Panel specifically  concerned the possible auction of seized goods 
destined for import – as the Panel had acknowledged, th ere did not appear to be even a single instance 
in which such an auction had occurred in China.  
88. Third, with respect to Claim Three (Copyright La w) of this dispute, the Panel had rejected an 
attempt by the United States to link China's content review processes to an alleged failure to protect 
copyrights.  The United States had contended that Ch inese law denied copyright to:  (i) works not yet 
submitted for content review;  (ii) works pending content review;  and (iii) works edited to pass 
content review.  The Panel had rejected the US ar gument on all three of these counts and had declined 
to find that China's content review procedures ra ised issues under the TRIPS Agreement.  The Panel 
had held that Chinese law violated Article 9 of the TRIPS Agreement in only one instance, namely 
copyright protection with respect to content that spec ifically had been found to be prohibited by law.  
Here again, China noted that the Panel's decisi on concerned a measure with virtually no economic 
significance.  Chinese law denied copyright protecti on under this law only to content that had been 
found to be illegal, such as child pornography.  In sum, the Panel had rejected the great majority of 
the arguments against China's measures concerning cr iminal enforcement, disposition of goods seized 
at the border, and copyright enforcement.  The Panel had found that Chinese measures were 
inconsistent with the TRIPS Agre ement only in two discrete areas – and in neither instance had the 
disputed measures actually been applied in WTO-inc onsistent manner.  China pledged to continue to 
fulfil its obligations under the TRIPS Agreement a nd the DSU in good faith and looked forward to 
working on a cooperative basis with other Members to strengthen the international protection of 
intellectual property rights in a balanced manner.  China would be examining the Report carefully and 
would inform the DSB of its intention in resp ect of the implementation, as provided for under 
Article 21.3 of the DSU.  China, once again, thanke d the Panel and the Secretariat for their efforts in 
resolving this dispute.   
89. The representative of the European Communities
 said that the EC had followed this dispute 
with great interest, and had participated in the proceedings as a third party.  Beyond the specific 
recommendations of the Panel on the claims brought by the United States, the EC welcomed the important clarifications offered by the Panel on some key TRIPS provisions.  The additional clarity 
offered would be essential for the future operatio n of the TRIPS Agreement.  On the specific 
interpretative questions addressed by the Panel, the EC wished to underline the importance of the 
interpretations of the terms "commercial scale" in Ar ticle 61 of the TRIPS, and also of the expression  WT/DSB/M/266 
 Page 21 
 
 
  "shall have the authority" that appeared not onl y in Articles 46 and 59 but in several other TRIPS 
Articles.  The EC believed that the interpretati ons offered ensured adequate and effective IPR 
enforcement on the basis of the TRIPS obligations.  Moreover, the EC wished to commend the Panel's 
reasoning with regard to the rules of interpretation to be applied in sensitive areas, such as the area of 
"criminal matters and attendant con cerns regarding sovereignty".  As the Panel noted in para. 7.501, 
these concerns found reflection in the text and sc ope of treaty obligations (which may therefore 
contain specific limitations and flexibilities), but  the treaty obligations themselves had to be 
interpreted in accordance with the customary rules of interpretation, as codified in the Vienna 
Convention.  On the specific claims brought by the United States, the Panel had recommended that 
China bring its Copyright law and Customs measures  into conformity with its obligations under the 
TRIPS Agreement.  The EC called on China to ex peditiously implement the recommendations in 
order to remove what constituted important shortcomings in China' s IPR regime.  The EC hoped that 
the outcome of this dispute would contribute to th e further improvement of China's IPR framework.  
The EC recognized the efforts deployed thus far by the Chinese government to improve IPR 
protection and enforcement.  As the Panel had stat ed in its concluding remark, its task was not to 
ascertain the existence or level of counterfeiting a nd piracy in China.  The EC, nonetheless, looked 
forward to further co-operating with China in orde r to reduce infringement levels and to ensure a 
strong and legally certain environment for IPR in China. 
90. The representative of Australia  said that her country had participated as a third party in this 
dispute.  Australia's participation reflected strong in terest in the proper interpretation of the provisions 
of the TRIPS Agreement at issue in the dispute.  Australia welcomed the Panel's findings and hoped 
that China would move quickly to bring into co mpliance the measures found by the Panel to be 
inconsistent with its WTO obligations.   
91. The representative of Canada  said that her country wished to thank the Panel and the 
Secretariat for their work in these proceedings.  Canada  had been a third party in this matter, as it had 
a systemic interest in the legal interpretations of  various provisions of the TRIPS Agreement that had 
been considered in this case.  Therefore, Canada  wanted to comment on a couple of the issues the 
Panel had considered in this case.  First, with resp ect to the Panel's analysis concerning the thresholds 
for criminal provisions, Canada was disappointed th at the Panel had not agreed with the arguments 
presented by the United States.  However, Canada welcomed the guidance provided by the Panel for 
enforcement efforts in the future.  Second, Cana da welcomed the Panel's finding, as it related to 
China's obligation for the disposal of infringing goods as found in Articles 59 and 46 of the TRIPS 
Agreement.  The Panel had conc luded that:  "in regard to c ounterfeit trademark goods, China's 
Customs measures provide that the simple removal of the trademark unlawfully affixed is sufficient to 
permit release of the goods into the channels of co mmerce in more than just  'exceptional cases'" and 
that, on this basis, "the Custom measures are incons istent with Article 59 of the TRIPS Agreement, as 
it incorporated the principle set out in the fourth sentence of Article 46".  Canada agreed with these 
conclusions of the Panel.  Fina lly, Canada welcomed the Panel's finding that the first sentence of 
Article 4(1) of China's Copyright Law was inconsis tent with China's obligations under Article 41.1 of 
the TRIPS Agreement.  Canada called upon China to  comply fully with the DSB's recommendations. 
92. The representative of Korea  said that, as a third party in this dispute, Korea welcomed the 
findings of the Panel Report.  Korea appreciated th at China had accepted the work of the Panel and 
had decided not to resort to the appeals procedure.   Accordingly, Korea exp ected China to put into 
copyright law and customs measures in complian ce with the DSB's findings in a timely manner.  
Korea would continue to monitor carefully the situation. 
93. The DSB took note  of the statements and adopted  the Panel Report contained in 
WT/DS362/R. WT/DSB/M/266 
Page 22  
 
  7. Proposed nomination for the indicative list of governmental and non-governmental 
panelists (WT/DSB/W/401) 
94. The Chairman
 drew attention to document WT/DSB/W /401, which contained an additional 
name proposed for inclusion on the indicative lis t of governmental and n on-governmental panellists, 
in accordance with Article 8.4 of the DSU.  He pr oposed that the DSB approve the name contained in 
document WT/DSB/W/401. 
95. The DSB so agreed . 
8. Appointment of Appellate Body members 
(a) Statement by the Chairman 
96. The Chairman , speaking under "Other Business", said that, as he had announced at the outset 
of the present meeting, he wished to make a st atement concerning the process for appointment of 
Appellate Body members.  He said that pursuant to the DSB decision of 22 December 2008, 20 March 
was the last day for submitting nominations for two positions on the Appellate Body.  Thus far, there 
had been a total of five candidates nominated by the following Members:  Argentina, Brazil, Mexico 
and the EC.  Additional nominations could still be  submitted on the present day by no later than 
6 p.m.  He recalled that, at its meeting on 22 D ecember, the DSB had agreed to establish a Selection 
Committee to review the candidates and to make recommendations to the DSB.  This Selection 
Committee, as provided for in the procedures set out in document WT/DSB/1, was composed of the 
Director-General and the 2009 Chairs of the Ge neral Council, the Goods Council, the Services 
Council, the TRIPS Council and the DSB.  The DSB Ch airman was to chair the Committee.  As to the 
time-table for its work, the Committee would conduct interviews with candidates and hear the views 
of delegations in April and May and then make its  recommendations to the DSB by no later than the 
end of May.  This should enable th e DSB to take a decision at its mee ting on 19 June.  He said that, as 
Chairman of the Selection Committee, he intended to hold the first organizational meeting of the 
Committee as soon as the coming Sunday.  At that me eting, he expected the Committee to discuss the 
process and also to agree on tentative dates for conducting interviews and hearing the views of 
delegations.  After the Committee had agreed on these da tes, he would ask the Secretariat to make the 
necessary arrangements to set up appointments with th e candidates and interested delegations.  As in 
the past, delegations were also free to make their views known to the Committee in writing.  In that 
regard, any written communications should be sent to  the Chairman of the DSB in care of the Council 
and TNC Division.  He further noted that, consistent  with past practice, dele gations wishing to meet 
separately with candidates were invited to contact di rectly the Missions of the respective candidates to 
make the appropriate arrangements.  Finally, he recalled that, pursuant  to its decision of 22 December, 
the DSB also had agreed to ask the DSB Chairman  to continue to carry out consultations on the 
possible reappointment of Mr. David Unterh alter.  He recalled that his predecessor, 
Amb. Mario Matus, had begun informal consultations on this matter and said that he would continue 
with those consultations. 
97. The DSB took note  of the statement. 
__________