WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 131 
 
 
  44. WT/DS179 – United States – Anti-Dumping measures on Stainless Steel Plate in Coils 
and Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from Korea 
Complaint by Korea. On 30 July 1999, Korea requ ested consultations with the US in respect of 
Preliminary and Final Determinations of the US's Department of Commerce (DOC) on Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Korea dated 4 November 1998 and 31 March 1999 respectively, and Stainless 
Steel Sheet and Strip from Korea dated 20 Janua ry 1999 and 8 June 1999 respectively. Korea 
considered that several errors were made by th e US in those determinations which resulted in 
erroneous findings and deficient conclusions as we ll as the imposition, calculation and collection of 
anti-dumping margins which are incompatible with th e obligation of the US under the provisions of 
the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI of GATT 1994 and in particular, but not necessarily 
exclusively, Article 2, Article 6 and Article 12 of  the Anti-Dumping Agreement. Korea believed that 
the US did not act in conformity with the cite d provisions, among others, in its treatment of the 
following: certain US sales made to a bankrupt compan y; the calculation of two distinct exchange rate 
periods for export sales; and currency conversion for certain normal value sales made in US dollars.  
On 14 October 1999, Korea requested the establishmen t of a panel. At its meeting on 27 October 
1999, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish a panel 
by Korea, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 19 November 1999. The EC and Japan 
reserved their third-party rights. On 24 March 2000, the Panel was composed. The panel circulated its 
report on 22 December 2000. The panel concluded that:  
(i) with respect to "local sales":  
• the US in the Plate  investigation did not act inconsis tently with its obligations under 
Article 2.4.1, Article 2.4 chapeau ("fair comp arison"), and Article 12.2 of the AD Agreement 
nor with its obligations under Article X:3(a) of GATT 1994;  
• the US in the Sheet  investigation acted inconsistently w ith Article 2.4.1 of the AD Agreement 
by performing a currency conversion that was not required.  
(ii) with respect to the treatment of unpaid sales, the US:  
• acted inconsistently with its obligations unde r Article 2.4 chapeau of the AD Agreement in 
both the Plate  and Sheet  investigations by making allowances in respect of sales through 
unaffiliated importers which were not permissi ble allowances for differences affecting price 
comparability;  
• acted inconsistently with its obligations unde r Article 2.4 chapeau of the AD Agreement in 
both the Plate and Sheet  investigations by making allowan ces in respect of sales through an 
affiliated importer which were not permissible allowances in the construction of the export 
price for costs incurred between importation and resale.  
(iii) with respect to multiple averaging, the panel concluded that:  
• the US's use of multiple averaging periods in the Plate and Sheet  investigations was 
inconsistent with the requirement of Article 2.4.2 to compare "a weighted average normal 
value with a weighted average of a ll comparable export transactions";  
• the US's use of multiple averaging periods in the Plate and Sheet  investigations was not 
inconsistent with Article 2.4.1 of the AD Agreement;  WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 132 
 
 
  • the US's use of multiple averaging periods in the Plate and Sheet  investigations was not 
inconsistent with the first sentence of the chap eau of Article 2.4 of the AD Agreement ("fair 
comparison").  
(iv) to the extent that the US has acted inconsistently with the provisions of the AD Agreement, it has 
nullified or impaired benefits accruing to Korea under that Agreement.  
At its meeting of 1 February 2001, the DSB adopted the panel report.  
45. WT/DS177, WT/DS178 – United States – Sa feguard Measure on Imports of Fresh, 
Chilled or Frozen Lamb from New Zealand 
Complaints by New Zealand and Australia. On 16 Ju ly 1999, New Zealand requested consultations 
with the US in respect of a safeguard measure imposed by the US on imports of lamb meat from New 
Zealand (WT/DS177). New Zealand alleged that by  Presidential Proclamation under Section 203 of 
the US Trade Act 1974, the US imposed a definitive safeguard measure in the form of a tariff-rate 
quota on imports fresh, chilled, or frozen lamb meat effective from 22 July 1999. New Zealand 
contended that this measure is inconsistent with Articles 2, 4,  5, 11 and 12 of the Agreement on 
Safeguards, and Articles I and XIX of GATT 1994.  
On 23 July 1999, Australia requested consultations with the US in respect of a definitive safeguard 
measure imposed by the US on imports of lamb (W T/DS178). Australia alleged that by Presidential 
Proclamation under Section 203 of the US Trade Ac t 1974, the US imposed a definitive safeguard 
measure in the form of a tariff-rate quota on imports of fresh, chilled, or frozen lamb meat from Australia effective from 22 July 1999. Australia cont ended that this measure is inconsistent with 
Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 11 and 12 of the Agreement on Safeguards, and Articles I, II and XIX of GATT 
1994.  
On 14 October 1999, New Zealand and Australia re quested the establishment of a panel. At its 
meeting on 27 October 1999, the DSB deferred the es tablishment of the panels. Further to the second 
requests to establish a panel by New Zealand and Australia, at its meeting on 19 November 1999, the 
DSB established, pursuant to Article 9.1 of the DSU, a single panel to examine the complaints 
WT/DS177 and WT/DS178. Canada, the EC, Iceland and Japan reserved their third-party rights. 
Australia reserved its third-party rights in rela tion to the complaint by New Zealand, while New 
Zealand reserved its third-party rights in relati on to the complaint by Australia. On 21 March 2000, 
the Panel was composed. The Panel circulated its  report on 21 December 2000. The Panel concluded 
that:  
• the US has acted inconsistently with Article XIX:1(a) of GATT 1994 by failing to demonstrate as a matter of fact the existence of "unforeseen developments";  
• the US has acted inconsistently with Article 4.1(c) of the Agreement on Safeguards because 
the USITC, in the lamb meat investigation,  defined the domestic industry as including input 
producers as producers of the like product at issue (i.e. lamb meat);  
• the complainants failed to establish that the US ITC's analytical approach to determining the 
existence of a threat of serious injury, in par ticular with respect to the prospective analysis 
and the time-period used, is inconsistent with Ar ticle 4.1(b) of the Agreement on Safeguards;  
• the complainants failed to establish that the USIT C's analytical approach to evaluating all of 
the factors listed in Article 4.2(a) of the Ag reement on Safeguards when  determining whether  WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 133 
 
 
  increased imports threatened to cause serious injury with respect to the domestic industry as 
defined in the investigation is in consistent with that provision;  
• the US has acted inconsistently with Article 4.1(c) of the Agreement on Safeguards because the USITC failed to obtain data in respect of  producers representing a major proportion of the 
total domestic production by the domestic indus try as defined in the investigation;  
• the US has acted inconsistently with Article 4.2(b) of the Agreement on Safeguards because 
the USITC's determination in the lamb meat investigation in respect of causation did not 
demonstrate the required causal link between increas ed imports and threat of serious injury, in 
that the determination did not establish that increased imports were by themselves a necessary 
and sufficient cause of threat of serious injury, and in that the determination did not ensure 
that threat of serious injury caused by "other factors" was not attributed to increased imports;  
• by virtue of the above violations of Article 4 of the Agreement on Safeguards, the US also has 
acted inconsistently with Article 2. 1 of the Agreement on Safeguards.  
On 31 January 2001, the US notified the DSB of its intention to appeal certain issues of law covered 
in the Panel Report and legal interpretations developed by the Panel. The Appellate Body circulated 
its report on 1 May 2001. The Appellate Body:  
• upheld the Panel's finding that the US acted inc onsistently with Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 
1994 by failing to demonstrate, as a matte r of fact, the existence of "unforeseen 
developments";  
• upheld the Panel's finding that the United Stat es acted inconsistently with Articles 2.1 and 
4.1(c) of the Agreement on Safeguards  because the USITC defined the relevant "domestic 
industry" to include growers and feeders of live lambs;  
• upheld the Panel's finding that the USITC ma de a determination re garding the "domestic 
industry" on the basis of data that was not su fficiently representative of that industry; but 
modified the Panel's ultimate finding that the US thereby acted inconsistently with 
Articles 2.1 and 4.1(c) of the Agreement on Safeguards  by finding, instead, that the United 
States thereby acted inconsistently with Articles 2.1 and 4.2(a) of that Agreement;  
• found that the Panel correctly interpreted the sta ndard of review, set forth in Article 11 of the 
DSU, which is appropriate to its examinati on of claims made under Article 4.2 of the 
Agreement on Safeguards ; but concluded that the Panel erre d in applying that standard in 
examining the claims made concerning the USITC' s determination that there existed a threat 
of serious injury; and found, moreover, that th e US acted inconsistently with Articles 2.1 and 
4.2(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards  because the USITC Report did not explain adequately 
the determination that there existed a threat of  serious injury to the domestic industry;  
• reversed the Panel's interpretation of the causation requirements in the Agreement on 
Safeguards  but, for different reasons, upheld the Pa nel's ultimate finding that the US acted 
inconsistently with Articles 2.1 and 4.2(b) of the Agreement because the USITC's determination that there existed a causal link between increased imports and a threat of 
serious injury did not ensure that injury caused to the domestic industry, by factors other than increased imports, was not attributed to those imports;  
• upheld the Panel's exercise of judicial econom y in declining to rule on the claim of New 
Zealand under Article 5.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards ; and  WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 134 
 
 
  • declined to rule on the respective conditional appeals of Australia and New Zealand relating 
to Articles I, II and XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994, a nd to Articles 2.2, 3.1, 5.1, 8.1, 11.1(a) and 
12.3 of the Agreement on Safeguards .  
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and th e Panel Report, as modified by the Appellate 
Body Report, on 16 May 2001.  
46. WT/DS176 – United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998 
Complaint by the European Communities and its Memb er States. On 8 July 1999, the EC requested 
consultations with the US in respect of Section 211 of the US Omnibus Appropriations Act. The EC 
and its member States alleged as follows:  
• Section 211, which was signed into law on 21 October 1998, did not allow the registration or 
renewal in the United States of a trademark, if it was previously abandoned by a trademark 
owner whose business and assets have been confiscated under Cuban law.  
• This law provided that no US court shall recognize or enforce any assertion of such rights.  
• Section 211 US Omnibus Appropriations Act was no t in conformity with the US' obligations 
under the TRIPS Agreement, notably its Article 2 in conjunction with the Paris Convention, 
Article 3, Article 4, Articles 15 to 21, Article 41, Article 42 and Article 62.  
Further to the request of the EC and its member States, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 
26 September 2000. Canada, Japan and Nicaragua reser ved their third-party rights. On 17 October 
2000, the EC and its member States requested the Di rector-General to determine the composition of 
the Panel. On 26 October 2000, the Panel was composed.  
The Panel circulated its Report on 6 August 2001. Th e Panel rejected most of the claims by the EC 
and their member States except that relating to the inconsistency of Section 211(a)(2) of the Omnibus 
Appropriations Act with Article 42 of the TRIPS Agre ement. In this regard, the panel concluded that 
this Section is inconsistent with the relevant TRIPs Article on the grounds that it limits, under certain circumstances, right holders' e ffective access to and availability of civil judicial procedures.  
On 4 October 2001, the EC and its Member States notified their decision to appeal certain issues of 
law and legal interpretations devel oped by the panel report. The Appellate Body report was circulated 
to Members on 12 January 2002. The Appellate Body:  
• found, in respect of the protection of trademarks, that Sections 211(a)(2) and (b) of the 
Omnibus Appropriations Act violated the national treatment and most-favoured nation 
obligations under the TRIPS Agreement and the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, thereby reversing th e Panel's findings to the contrary;  
• reversed the Panel's finding that Section 211(a )(2) is inconsistent w ith Article 42 of the 
TRIPS Agreement and concluded that Article 42 contains procedural obligations, while Section 211 affects substantive trademark rights;  
• upheld the Panel's findings that Section 211 does not violate the US' obligations under Article 2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement in conjunc tion with Article 6quinquies A(1) of the Paris 
Convention, and Articles 15 and 16 of the TRIP S Agreement. It also upheld the Panel's 
finding under Article 42 of the TRIPS Agreement in respect of Section 211(b); and   WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 135 
 
 
  • reversed the Panel's conclusion that trade na mes are not a category of intellectual property 
protected under the TRIPS Agreement and then  completed the analysis reaching the same 
conclusions for trade names as with respect to  trademarks. It also found that Sections 
211(a)(2) and (b) are not inconsistent with Artic le 2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement in conjunction 
with Article 8 of the Paris Convention (1967).  
At its meeting on 2 January 2002, the DSB adopted th e Appellate Body report a nd the Panel report, as 
upheld by the Appellate Body report.  
47. WT/DS174, WT/DS290 – European Communi ties – Protection of Trademarks and 
Geographical Indications for Agricu ltural Products and Foodstuffs 
Complaints by the United States (WT/DS174) and Australia (WT/DS290).  
On 1 June 1999, the US requested consultations with the EC in respect of  the alleged lack of 
protection of trademarks and geogr aphical indications (GIs) for agri cultural products and foodstuffs in 
the EC. The US contended that EC Regulation 2081/92, as amended, does not provide national 
treatment with respect to geographical indications  and does not provide sufficient protection to pre-
existing trademarks that are similar or identical to  a geographical indication. The US considered this 
situation to be inconsistent with the EC's oblig ations under the TRIPS Agreement, including but not 
necessarily limited to Articles 3, 16, 24, 63 and 65 of the TRIPS Agreement.  
On 4 April 2003, the US sent an additional request  for consultations concerning the protection of 
trademarks and GIs for agricultural products and fo odstuffs in the EC. This request does not replace 
but rather supplements the 1999 request. The measures concerned are EC Regulation 2081/92, as amended, and its related implem enting and enforcement measures (the "EC Regulation"). According 
to the US, the EC Regulation limits the GIs that the EC will protect and limits the access of nationals of other Members to the EC GI procedures and pr otections provided under the Regulation. The US 
claims that the EC Regulation appears to be inconsiste nt with Articles 2, 3, 4, 16, 22, 24, 63 and 65 of 
the TRIPS Agreement and Articles I and III:4 of the GATT 1994.  
On 17 April 2003, Australia requested consultations with the EC concerning the protection of 
trademarks and to the registration and protecti on of geographical indications for foodstuffs and 
agricultural products in the EC. The measures at issue include Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 
of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs and re lated measures ("the EC measure").  
According to Australia:  
• the EC measure seems not to accord immediately and unconditionally to the nationals and/or 
products of each WTO Member any advantage, fa vour, privilege of immunity granted to the 
nationals and/or like products of any other WTO Member,  
• the EC measure seems not to accord to the nationals and/or products of each WTO Member treatment no less favourable than that it accords to its own nationals and/or like products of 
national origin,  
• the EC measure may diminish the legal protection for trademarks,  
• the EC measure may not be consistent with the EC's obligation to provide the legal means for 
interested parties to prevent misleading use of a geographical indication or any use which WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 136 
 
 
  constitutes an act of unfair competition within the meaning of Article 10bis of the Paris 
Convention (1967),  
• the EC may not have met its transparency obl igations in respect of the measure, and  
• the EC measure may be more trade-restrictive than necessary to fulfil a legitimate objective, 
taking account of the risks non-fulfilment would create.  
Australia claims that the EC measure appears to be inconsistent with the EC's obligations pursuant to 
Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 16, 20, 22, 24, 41, 42, 63 an d 65 of the TRIPS Agreement, Articles I and III of 
GATT 1994, Article 2 of the TBT Agreement and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.  
In dispute WT/DS174, Sri Lanka Australia, Hungary, India, Argentina, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech 
Republic, Malta, Slovenia, Romania, the Slovak Republic  and Turkey requested to join the additional 
consultations. The EC informed the DSB that it had accepted the requests of Argentina, Australia, 
Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Hungary, India, Malta, Mexico, New Zealand, Romania, the 
Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Sri Lanka and Turkey to join the consultations.  
In dispute WT/DS290, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech  Republic, Malta, the United States, Hungary and 
Slovenia, New Zealand, Romania, the Slovak Republic, Chinese Taipei and Turkey, Argentina, 
Colombia and Mexico requested to join the cons ultations. The EC informed the DSB that it has 
accepted the requests of Argentina, Bulgaria, Colo mbia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Malta, 
Mexico, New Zealand, Romania, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Chinese Taipei, Turkey and the 
United States to join the consultations.  
On 18 August 2003, the United States and Australia re quested separately the establishment of a panel. 
At its meeting on 29 August 2003, the DSB deferred the establishment of the panels. Further to 
second requests to establish a panel from the US and Australia, the DSB estab lished a single panel at 
its meeting on 2 October 2003. Australia, Colombia, Guatemala, India, Mexico, New Zealand, 
Norway, Chinese Taipei and Turkey reserved their third-party rights. On 6 October, China reserved its third-party right. On 10 October, Argentina and Canada reserved their third-party rights. On 13 
October, Brazil reserved its third-party rights.  
On 13 February 2004, the United States and Australi a requested the Director-General to determine the 
composition of the Panel. On 23 February 2004, the Director-General composed the Panel.  
On 17 August 2004, the Chairman of the Panel in formed the DSB that it would not be able to 
complete its work in six months due to the complexi ty of the case and that the Panel expected to issue 
its final report to the parties before the end of year 2004.  
On 15 March 2005, the Panel reports were circulated to Members.  
• the Panel agreed with the United States and Australia that the EC's GI Regulation does not provide national treatment to other WTO Members' right holders and products, because: (i) registration of a GI from a country outside the European Union is contingent upon the government of that country adopting a system of GI protection equivalent to the EC's system and offering reciprocal protection to EC GIs;  and (ii) the Regulation's procedures require 
applications and objections from other WTO Memb ers to be examined and transmitted by the 
governments of those Members, and require tho se governments to operate systems of product 
inspection like EC member States. Therefore, foreign nationals do not have guaranteed access 
to the EC's system for their GIs, unlike EC nationals;   WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 137 
 
 
  • otherwise, there is no finding that the substance of the EC system of GI protection, which 
requires product inspection, is inconsistent with WTO obligations; and  
• the Panel agreed with the EC that, although its GI Regulation allows it to register GIs even when they conflict with a prior trademark, the Regulation, as written, is sufficiently constrained to qualify as a "limited exception" to  trademark rights. However, the Panel agreed 
with the United States and Australia that the TRIPS Agreement does not allow unqualified 
coexistence of GIs with prior trademarks.  
The DSB adopted the Panel report on 20 April 2005.  
48. WT/DS170 – Canada – Term of Patent Protection 
Complaint by the United States. On 6 May 1999, the US requested consultations with Canada in 
respect of the term of protection granted to patents that were file d in Canada before 1 October 1989. 
The US contended that the TRIPS Agreement oblig ates Members to grant a term of protection for 
patents that runs at least until twenty years after the filing date of the underlying protection, and 
requires each Member to grant this minimum term to all patents existing as of the date of the application of the Agreement to that Member. The US  alleged that under the Canadian Patent Act, the 
term granted to patents issued on the basis of a pplications filed before 1 October 1989 is 17 years 
from the date on which the patent is issued. The US c ontended that this situati on is inconsistent with 
Articles 33, 65 and 70 of the TRIPS Agreement.  
On 15 July 1999, the US requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 26 July 1999, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Further to a second request to establish a panel by the US, 
the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 22  September 1999. On 13 October 1999, the US 
requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the Panel. On 22 October 1999, the 
Panel was composed. The report of the panel was circulated to Members on 5 May 2000. The panel 
found that:  
• pursuant to Article 70.2 of the TRIPS Agreement,  Canada was required to apply the relevant 
obligations of the TRIPS Agreement to inventions  protected by patents that were in force on 1 
January 1996, i.e. the date of entry into force for Canada of the TRIPS Agreement.  
• Section 45 of Canada's Patent Act does not make available a term of protection that does not 
end before 20 years from the date of filing as mandated by Article 33 of the TRIPS Agreement, thus rejecting, 
inter alia , Canada's argument that the 17-year statutory protection 
under its Patent Act was effectively equivalent to the 20-year term prescribed by the TRIPS 
Agreement because of average pendency periods fo r patents, informal and statutory delays 
etc.  
On 19 June 2000, Canada notified its  intention to appeal certain issu es of law and legal interpretations 
developed by the panel. The Appellate Body re port was circulated to Members on 18 September 
2000. The Appellate Body upheld all of the findings a nd conclusions of the panel that were appealed.  
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as upheld by the Appellate Body 
report, on 12 October 2000.  WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 138 
 
 
  49. WT/DS166 – United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Wheat 
Gluten from the European Communities 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 17 March 1999, the EC requested consultations with the US in respect of definitive safeguard measures imposed by the US on imports of wheat gluten 
from the European Communities. The EC contended that by a Proclamation of 30 May 1998, and a 
Memorandum of the same date, by the US Pres ident, under which the US imposed definitive 
safeguard measures in the form of a quantitative lim itation on imports of wheat gluten from the EC, 
effective as of 1 June 1998. The EC considered these measures to be in violation of Articles 2, 4, 5 
and 12 of the Agreement on Safegua rds; Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture; and Articles I 
and XIX of GATT 1994.  
On 3 June 1999, the EC requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 16 June 1999, the 
DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Furthe r to a second request to establish a panel, the DSB 
established a panel at its meeting on 26 July 1999. Australia, Canada and New Zealand reserved their 
third-party rights. On 11 October 1999, the Panel was composed. The report of the panel was 
circulated to Members on 31 July 2000. The panel found that:  
(i) the United States had not acted inconsistently with Articles 2.1 and 4 of the Safeguards Agreement 
or with Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994 in  
• redacting certain confidential informa tion from the published USITC Report or  
• determining the existence of imports in "increased quantities" and serious injury.  
(ii) the definitive safeguard measure imposed by th e US on certain imports of wheat gluten based on 
the US investigation and determin ation was inconsistent with Artic les 2.1 and 4 of the Safeguards 
Agreement in that  
• the causation analysis applied by the USITC did not  ensure that injury caused by other factors 
was not attributed to imports and  
• imports from Canada (a NAFTA partner) were excluded from the application of the measure 
after imports from all sources were included in the investigation for the purposes of 
determining serious injury caused by incr eased imports (following a separate inquiry 
concerning whether imports from Canada accounted  for a "substantial share" of total imports 
and whether they "contributed importantly" to the "serious injury" caused by total imports).  
(iii) The panel further concluded that the US fa iled to notify immediately the initiation of the 
investigation under Article 12.1(a) and the finding of serious injury under Article 12.1(b) of the 
Safeguards Agreement.  
(iv) in notifying its decision to take the measure only after the measure was implemented, the US did not make timely notification under Article 12.1(c) . For the same reason, the US violated the 
obligation of Article 12.3 to provide adequate opp ortunity for prior consultations on the measure. 
(v) the US therefore also violated its obligation under Article 8.1 of the Safeguards Agreement to endeavour to maintain a substantia lly equivalent level of concessions and other obligations to that 
existing under the GATT 1994 between it and the expor ting Members which would be affected by 
such measures, in accordance with Article  12.3 of the Safeguards Agreement.   WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 139 
 
 
  On 26 September 2000, the US notified its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of 
law and legal interpretation covere d in the Panel Report and certain legal interpretations developed by 
the Panel. The Appellate Body circulated its report on 22 December 2000. The Appellate Body:  
• upheld the Panel's conclusion that the US had not  acted inconsistently with its obligations 
under Articles 4.2(a) and 4.2(b) of the Safeguard s Agreement, but, in so doing, reversed the 
Panel's interpretation of Article 4.2(a) of the Safeguards Agreement that the competent 
authorities are required to evaluate only the "relev ant factors" listed in Article 4.2(a) of that 
Agreement as well as any other "factors" whic h were clearly raised before the competent 
authorities as relevant by the interested pa rties in the domestic investigation;  
• reversed the Panel's interpretation of Article  4.2(b) of the Safeguards Agreement that 
increased imports "alone", "in and of themselves", or " per se ", must be capable of causing 
"serious injury", as well as the Panel's conclusions on the issue of causation;  
• found, nonetheless, that the US had acted in consistently with its obligations under 
Article 4.2(b) of the Safeguards Agreement;  
• upheld the Panel's finding that the US had acted inconsistently with its obligations under 
Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Safeguards Agreement;  
• upheld the Panel's findings that the US had act ed inconsistently with its obligations under 
Articles 12.1(a) and 12.1(b) of the Safeguards Agreement;  
• reversed the Panel's finding that the US had act ed inconsistently with  its obligations under 
Article 12.1(c) of the Safeguards Agreement; found that the US had acted consistently with its 
obligations under Article 12.1(c) of that Agre ement to notify "immediately" its decision to 
apply a safeguard measure;  
• upheld the Panel's finding that the US had acted inconsistently with its obligations under 
Article 12.3 of the Safeguards Agreement, a nd, in consequence, upheld the Panel's finding 
that the US had acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article  8.1 of the Safeguards 
Agreement;  
• the Panel did not act inconsistently with Artic le 11 of the DSU in concluding that the USITC 
had "considered industry productivity as require d by Article 4.2(a)" of the Safeguards 
Agreement;  
• the Panel did not act inconsistently in finding that the USITC was not required to evaluate the overall relationship between the protein content of wheat and the price of wheat gluten as a "relevant factor", under Article 4.2(a) of th e Safeguards Agreement, during the post-1994 
period of investigation; and,  
• the Panel did not act inconsistently in declini ng to draw "adverse" inferences from the refusal 
of the US to provide certain allegedly confiden tial information requested from it by the Panel 
under Article 13.1 of the DSU;  
• the Panel acted inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU in finding that "the USITC Report 
provides an adequate, reasoned and reasonable expl anation with respect to 'profits and losses'" 
and, therefore, reversed this finding; and foun d no error in the Panel's exercise of judicial 
economy in not examining the claims of the EC under Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994, 
and also under Article 5 of the Safeguards Agreement and Article I of the GATT 1994.  WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 140 
 
 
  At its meeting of 19 January 2001, the DSB adopted  the Appellate Body report and the Panel report, 
as modified by the Appellate Body report.  
50. WT/DS165 – United States – Import Measures on Certain Products from the European 
Communities 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 4 Marc h 1999, the EC requested consultations with the 
US in respect of the US decisi on, effective as of 3 March 1999, to withhold liquidation on imports 
from the EC of a series of products together valu ed at over $500 million on an annual basis, and to 
impose a contingent liability for 100% duties on each  individual importation of affected products. On 
2 March 1999, the arbitrators charged with dete rmining the level of suspension of concessions, 
requested by the United States in response to the fa ilure by the EC to implement the recommendations 
of the DSB in respect of the EC's banana regime  (WT/DS27), had asked for additional data from the 
parties and informed the parties that they were una ble to issue their report within the 60-day period 
envisaged by the DSU. The EC contends that the measure made effective by the US as of 3 March 
1999 deprives EC imports into the United States, of the products in question, of the right to a duty not 
in excess of the rate bound in th e US Schedule. The EC further contended that, by requiring the 
deposit of a bond to cover the contingent liability for 100% duties, US Customs effectively impose 
100% duties on each individual importation. The EC alle ged violations of Articles 3, 21, 22 and 23 of 
the DSU, and Articles I, II, VIII and XI of GATT 1994. The EC also alleged nullification and impairment of benefits under GATT 1994, as well as the impediment of the objectives of the DSU and GATT 1994. The EC had requested urgent consu ltations pursuant to Article 4.8 of the DSU.  
On 11 May 1999, the EC requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 26 May 1999, the 
DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Further to a second request to establish a panel by the EC, 
the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 16 June 1999. Dominica, Ecuador, India, Jamaica, Japan 
and St. Lucia reserved their third party rights. On  29 September 1999, the EC requested the Director-
General to determine the composition of the Panel.  On 8 October 1999, the Panel was composed. The 
report of the panel was circulated to Memb ers on 17 July 2000. The panel found that:  
• the US measure of 3 March 1999 was seeking to redress a WTO violation and was thus covered by Article 23.1 of the DSU;  
• by putting into place that measure prior to the time authorized by the DSB, the US made a unilateral determination that the revised EC bananas regime in respect of its bananas import, 
sales and distribution regime violated WTO rules, contrary to Articles 23.2(a) and 21.5, first sentence, of the DSU. In doing so, the United States did not abide by the DSU and thus also 
violated Article 23.1 together with Ar ticle 23.2(a) and 21.5 of the DSU;  
• the increased bonding requirements of the measure of 3 March 1999 as such led to violations 
of Articles II:1(a) and II:1(b), first sentence ( one panelist dissented, considering that those 
requirements rather violated Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994);  
• the increased interest charges, costs and fees resulting from the 3 March Measure violated Article II:1(b), last sentence;  
• the measure in question also violated Article I of the GATT 1994;  
• in light of these conclusions, the measure of 3 March 1999 constituted a suspension of 
concessions or other obligations within the mean ing of Articles 3.7, 22.6 and 23.2(c) of the 
DSU imposed without DSB authorization and during the ongoing Article 22.6 arbitration 
process; and   WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 141 
 
 
  • in suspending concessions in those circumstanc es, the US did not abide by the DSU and thus 
violated Article 23.1 together with Articles 3.7, 22.6 and 23.2(c) of the DSU.  
On 12 September 2000, the EC notified its intenti on to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the panel. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated on 11 
December 2000. The Appellate Body:  
• concluded that the Panel erred by stating that  the WTO-consistency of a measure taken by a 
Member to comply with recommendations and rulings of the DSB can be determined by 
arbitrators appointed under Article 22.6 of the DSU, and, thus, concluded that the Panel's 
statements on this issue have no legal effect.  
• concluded that the Panel erred by stating that  "[o]nce a Member imposes DSB authorised 
suspensions of concessions or obligations, that Member's measure is WTO compatible (it was 
explicitly authorised by the DSB)", and, thus , concluded that this statement has no legal 
effect.  
• reversed the Panel's findings that the increas ed bonding requirements are inconsistent with 
Articles II:1(a) and II:2(b), first sentence, of the GATT 1994, and  
• reversed the Panel's finding that, by adopting the 3 March Measure, the US acted inconsistently with Article 23.2(a) of the DSU.  
As it upheld the Panel's finding that the 3 March Measure, the measure at issue in this dispute, is no longer in existence, the Appellate Body did no t make any recommendation to the DSB pursuant to 
Article 19.1 of the DSU.  
At its meeting of 10 January 2001, the DSB adopted  the Appellate Body report and the Panel report, 
as modified by the Appellate Body report.  
51. WT/DS163 – Korea – Measures Affecting Government Procurement 
Complaint by the United States. On 16 February 1999 , the US requested consultations with Korea in 
respect of certain procurement practices of the Korean Airport Construction Authority (KOACA), and other entities concerned with the procurement of airp ort construction in Korea. The US claimed that 
such practices were inconsistent with Korea' s obligations under the Agreement on Government 
Procurement (GPA). These include practices relating to qualification for bidding as a prime contractor, domestic partnering, and the absence of access to challenge procedures that are in breach 
of the GPA. The US contended that KOACA and the other entities are within the scope of Korea's list of central government entities as specified in Annex 1 of Korea's obligations in Appendix I of the 
GPA, and pursuant to Article I(1) of the GPA, appl y to the procurement of airport construction.  
On 11 May 1999, the US requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 26 May 1999, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Further to a second request to establish a panel by the US, 
the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 16 June 1999. The EC and Japan reserved their third 
party rights. On 30 August 1999, the Panel was composed. The report of the panel was circulated to Members on 1 May 2000. The panel found that:  
• the entities conducting procurement for the proj ect at issue were not covered entities under 
Korea's Appendix I of the GPA and were not ot herwise covered by Kore a's obligations under 
the GPA.  WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 142 
 
 
  • based on less than complete Korean answers to  certain US questions during negotiations for 
Korea's accession to the GPA, there had initially b een an error on the part of the US as to 
which Korean authority was in charge of the project at issue. However, in light of all the facts 
the panel considered that there was notice of  the error and the US should at least have 
conducted further inquiries in this regard before the negotiations were ended.  
• the US had not demonstrated that benefits reasonably expected to accrue under the GPA, or in the negotiations resulting in Korea's accession to  the GPA, were nullified or impaired by 
measures taken by Korea (whether or not in conf lict with the provisions of the GPA), within 
the meaning of Article XXII:2 of the GPA.  
The DSB adopted the Panel Report at  its meeting on 19 June 2000.  
52. WT/DS162 – United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 
Complaint by Japan. On 10 February 1999, Japan requ ested consultations with the US in respect of 
the US Anti-Dumping Act of 1916, 15 USC. 72 (1994), ("US 1916 Act"). Japan alleged that the US 1916 Act stipulates that the importation or sale of imported goods within the US market in certain 
circumstances is unlawful, constituting a criminal offence and inviting civil liability. Japan further 
alleged that judicial decisions under the US 1916 Act are made without the procedural safeguards 
provided for in the Anti-Dumping Agreement. Japan stated that a court action had been brought under 
the US 1916 Act against affiliates of Japanese compan ies. Japan contended that the US 1916 Act is 
inconsistent with Articles III, VI and XI of  GATT 1994, and the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  
On 3 June 1999, Japan requested the establishmen t of a panel. At its meeting on 16 June 1999, the 
DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Further to a second request to establish a panel by Japan, 
the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 26 July 1999. The EC and India reserved their third-party rights. On 11 August 1999, the Panel was composed. The report of the panel was circulated to Members on 29 May 2000. The panel considered th at Article VI:1 of GATT 1994 applies to any 
situation where a Member addresses the type of transnational price discrimination defined in that Article. The panel then found that, on the basis of th e terms of the 1916 Act, its legislative history and 
its interpretation by US courts, the transnational price discrimination test found in the 1916 Act met 
the definition of Article VI:1 of GATT 1994.  The panel next went on to find that:  
• by providing for the imposition of treble damages, fines or imprisonment, instead of anti-dumping duties, the 1916 Act violated Article VI :2 of the GATT 1994 and Article 18.1 of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement;  
• by not providing for a number of procedural re quirements found in Article VI:1 of the GATT 
1994 and the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the 1916 Act violated Articles VI:1 of the GATT 1994 and Articles 1, 4.1, 5.1, 5.2, 5.4 and 18.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; and  
• by violating Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT 1994, and Articles 1, 4.1, 5.1, 5.2, 5.4 and 18.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the 1916 Act violated Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement and Article 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  
On 29 May 2000, the US notified its intention to app eal certain issues of law and legal interpretations 
developed by the panel. The Appellate Body exam ined this appeal with that of WT/DS136. The 
Appellate Body report was circulated to Members on 28 May 2000. The Appellate Body upheld all of 
the findings and conclusions of the panel that were appealed.   WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 143 
 
 
  The DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as upheld by the Appellate Body 
report, on 26 September 2000.  
53. WT/DS161, WT/DS169 – Korea – Measures A ffecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled and 
Frozen Beef 
Complaints by the United States and Australia. On 1 February 1999, the US requested consultations 
with Korea in respect of a Korean regulatory sch eme that allegedly discriminates against imported 
beef by inter alia, confining sales of imported beef to specialised stores (dual retail system), limiting the manner of its display, and otherwise constrai ning the opportunities for the sale of imported beef. 
The US alleged that Korea imposes a markup on sales of imported beef, limits import authority to certain so-called "super-groups" and the Livestock Producers Marketing Organization ("LPMO"), and 
provides domestic support to the cattle industry in Korea in amounts which cause Korea to exceed its 
aggregate measure of support as reflected in Ko rea's schedule. The US contended that these 
restrictions apply only to imported beef, thereby de nying national treatment to beef imports, and that 
the support to the domestic industry amounts to domes tic subsidies that contra vene the Agreement on 
Agriculture. The US alleged violations of Articles II, III, XI, and XVII of GATT 1994; Articles 3, 4, 6, and 7 of the Agreement on Agriculture; and Artic les 1 and 3 of the Import Licensing Agreement.  
On 13 April 1999, Australia requested consultations with Korea on the same basis as the US request. 
On 15 April 1999, the US requested the establishment of a panel in respect of WT/DS161. At its 
meeting on 28 April 1999, the DSB deferred the estab lishment of a panel. Further to a second request 
to establish a panel by the US, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 26 May 1999. Australia, 
Canada and New Zealand reserved their third-party ri ghts. Further to Australia's request to establish a 
panel in respect of WT/DS169, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 26 July 1999. Canada, New Zealand and the US reserved their third-party ri ghts. At the request of Korea, the DSB agreed 
that, pursuant to DSU Article 9.1, this complaint w ould be examined by the same panel established in 
respect of WT/DS161. On 4 August 1999, the Panel was composed. The report of the panel was circulated to Members on 31 July 2000. The panel found that:  
• a number of the contested Korean measures benefited, by virtue of a Note in Korea's Schedule of Concessions, from a transitional period until 1 January 2001, by which date they had to be eliminated or otherwise brought into conformity with the WTO Agreement.  
• the requirement that the supply of beef from the LPMO's wholesale market be limited to specialised imported beef stores and that tho se stores bear a special sign "Specialized 
Imported Beef Store" was in violation of Article III:4 of the GATT 1994, which violation 
could not be justified under Article XX(d) of the GATT 1994.  
• the more stringent record-keeping requirements imposed on purchasers of imported beef were 
also inconsistent with Article III:4. Certain other regulations dealing with the importation and distribution of imported beef were likewise found to violate Article III:4.  
• the LPMO's lack of and delays in calling for tenders and its discharge practices between 
November 1997 and the end of May 1998 cons tituted import restrictions contrary to 
Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994 and Article 4. 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. Moreover, 
the LPMO's calls for tenders that were made subject to distinctions between grass-fed and 
grain-fed cattle, constituted, in the view of the panel, a restriction inconsistent with Article XI:1. They also treated imports of b eef from grass-fed cattle less favourably than 
provided for in Korea's Schedule, which was in breach of Article II:1(a) of the GATT 1994.  WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 144 
 
 
  • in addition, Korea's domestic support for beef for 1997 and 1998 was not correctly calculated 
and exceeded the de minimis  level, contrary to Article 6 of the Agreement on Agriculture, and 
was not included in Korea's Current Total AMS, contrary to Article 7.2(a) of the Agreement 
on Agriculture.  
• Korea's total domestic support (Current Tota l AMS) for 1997 and 1998 exceeded Korea's 
commitment levels, as specified in Section 1, Part  IV of its Schedule, contrary to Article 3.2 
of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
On 11 September 2000, Korea notified its intenti on to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the panel. On 11 D ecember 2000, the report of the Appellate Body was 
circulated. The Appellate Body reversed the Panel's finding on recalculated amounts of Korea's 
domestic support for beef in 1997 and 1998, as  the Panel used, for these recalculations, a 
methodology inconsistent with Article 1(a)(ii) a nd Annex 3 of the Agreement on Agriculture; and 
reversed, therefore, the Panel's following conclusions, based on these recalculated amounts:  
• that Korea's domestic support for beef in 1997 and 1998 exceeded the de minimis  level 
contrary to Article 6 of the Agreement on Agriculture;  
• that Korea's failure to include Current AMS for beef in Korea's Current Total AMS was 
contrary to Article 7.2(a) of that Agreement; and  
• that Korea's total domestic support for 1997 an d 1998 exceeded Korea's commitment levels 
contrary to Article 3.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
The Appellate Body was unable, in view of the in sufficient factual findings made by the Panel, to 
complete the legal analysis of:  
• whether Korea's domestic support for beef exceeds the de minimis  level contrary to Article 6 
of the Agreement on Agriculture;  
• whether the failure to include Current AMS for beef in Korea's Current Total AMS was 
contrary to Article 7.2(a) of that Agreement; and  
• whether Korea's total domestic support for 1997 and 1998 exceeded Korea's commitment 
levels contrary to Ar ticle 3.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
At its meeting of 10 January 2001, the DSB adopted  the Appellate Body report and the Panel report, 
as modified by the Appellate Body report.  
54. WT/DS160 – United States – Section 110(5) of US Copyright Act 
Complaint by the European Communities and thei r member States. On 26 January 1999, the EC 
requested consultations with the US in respect of Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act, as amended 
by the Fairness in Music Licensing Act, which was enacted on 27 October 1998. The EC contended 
that Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act perm its, under certain conditions, the playing of radio 
and television music in public places (bars, shops, restaurants, etc.) without the payment of a royalty 
fee. The EC considered that this statute is inconsis tent with US obligations under Article 9(1) of the 
TRIPS Agreement, which requires Members to comp ly with Articles 1-21 of the Berne Convention. 
The dispute centered on the compatibility of two exem ptions provided for in Section 110(5) of the US 
Copyright Act with Article 13 of the TRIPS Agre ement, which allows certain limitations or 
exceptions to exclusive rights of copyright holders, subject to the condition that such limitations are  WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 145 
 
 
  confined to certain special cases, do not conflict with  a normal exploitation of the work in question 
and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder:  
• The so-called "business" exemption, provided for in sub-paragraph (B) of Section 110(5), 
essentially allows the amplification of music broadcasts, without an authorization and a 
payment of a fee, by food service and drinki ng establishments and by  retail establishments, 
provided that their size does not exceed a certain square footage limit. It also allows such amplification of music broadcasts by establishments above this square footage limit, provided that certain equipment limitations are met.  
• The so-called "homestyle" exemption, provided for in sub-paragraph (A) of Section 110(5), allows small restaurants and retail outlets to amplify music broadcasts without an 
authorization of the right holders and without the payment of a fee, provided that they use only homestyle equipment (i.e. equipment of a kind commonly used in private homes).  
On 15 April 1999, the EC requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 28 April 1999, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Further to a second request to establish a panel by the EC, 
the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 26  May 1999. Brazil, Australia, Canada, Japan and 
Switzerland reserved their third-party rights. On 27 Ju ly 1999, the EC made a request to the Director-
in-Charge to determine the composition of the Pa nel. On 6 August 1999, the Panel was composed. 
The report of the panel was circulated to Me mbers on 15 June 2000. The panel found that:  
• the "business" exemption provided for in sub-pa ragraph (B) of Section 110(5) of the US 
Copyright Act did not meet the requirements of  Article 13 of the TRIPS Agreement and was 
thus inconsistent with Articles 11bis(1)(iii) a nd 11(1)(ii) of the Berne Convention (1971) as 
incorporated into the TRIPS Agreement by Artic le 9.1 of that Agreement. The panel noted, 
inter alia, that a substantial majority of eating and drinking establishments and close to half of 
retail establishments were covered by the business exemption.  
• the "homestyle" exemption provided for in sub-paragraph (A) of Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act met the requirements of Article  13 of the TRIPS Agreement and was thus 
consistent with Articles 11bis(1)(iii) and 11( 1)(ii) of the Berne Convention (1971) as 
incorporated into the TRIPS Agreement by Artic le 9.1 of that Agreement. Here, the panel 
noted certain limits imposed on the beneficiaries of the exemption, permissible equipment and categories of works as well as the practice by US courts.  
The DSB adopted the Panel Report at its meeting on 27 July 2000.  
55. WT/DS156 – Guatemala – Definitive Anti-Dum ping Measure on Grey Portland Cement 
from Mexico 
Complaint by Mexico. On 5 January 1999, Mexico requested consultations with Guatemala concerning definitive anti-dumping duties imposed by the authorities of Guatemala on imports of grey Portland cement from Mexico and the proceedings lead ing thereto. Mexico alleged that the definitive 
anti-dumping measure is inconsistent with Articles 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 18 of the Antidumping 
Agreement and its Annexes I and II, as well as with  Article VI of GATT 1994. See also WT/DS60.  
On 15 July 1999, Mexico requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 26 July 1999, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Further to a second request to establish a panel by Mexico, 
the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 22 September 1999. Ecuador, El Salvador, the EC, 
Honduras and the US reserved their third-party ri ghts. On 12 October 1999, Mexico requested the 
Director-General to determine the composition of  the panel. On 2 November 1999, the Panel was WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 146 
 
 
  composed. The panel report was circulated on 24 October 2000. The pa nel concluded that 
Guatemala's initiation of an investigation, the conduct of the investigation and imposition of a 
definitive measure on imports of grey Portland cement from Mexico's Cruz Azul is inconsistent with 
the requirements in the AD Agreement in that:  
• Guatemala's determination that there was suffici ent evidence of dumping and threat of injury 
to initiate an investigation, is inconsiste nt with Article 5.3 of the AD Agreement;  
• Guatemala's determination that there was suffici ent evidence of dumping and threat of injury 
to initiate an investigation and consequent failure to reject the application for anti-dumping 
duties by Cementos Progreso is inconsistent  with Article 5.8 of the AD Agreement;  
• Guatemala's failure to timely notify Mexico under Article 5.5 of the AD Agreement is 
inconsistent with that provision;  
• Guatemala's failure to meet the requirements for a public notice of the initiation of an 
investigation is inconsistent with Article 12.1.1 of the AD Agreement;  
• Guatemala's failure to timely provide the full text of the application to Mexico and Cruz Azul is inconsistent with Article 6.1.3 of the AD Agreement;  
• Guatemala's failure to grant Mexico access to the f ile of the investigation is inconsistent with 
Articles 6.1.2 and 6.4 of the AD Agreement;  
• Guatemala's failure to timely make Cement os Progreso's 19 December 1996 submission 
available to Cruz Azul until 8 January 1997 is  inconsistent with Ar ticle 6.1.2 of the AD 
Agreement;  
• Guatemala's failure to provide two copies of th e file of the investigation as requested by Cruz 
Azul is inconsistent with Artic le 6.1.2 of the AD Agreement;  
• Guatemala's extension of the period of investigation requested by Cementos Progreso without providing Cruz Azul with a full opportunity for the defence of its interest is inconsistent with 
Article 6.2 of the AD Agreement;  
• Guatemala's failure to inform Mexico of the inclusion of non–governmental experts in the 
verification team is inconsis tent with paragraph 2 of A nnex I of the AD Agreement;  
• Guatemala's failure to require Cementos Progreso 's to provide a statement of the reasons why 
summarization of the information submitted during verification was not possible is 
inconsistent with Article 6.5.1 of the AD Agreement;  
• Guatemala's decision to grant Cementos Progr eso's 19 December submission confidential 
treatment on its own initiative is inconsiste nt with Article 6.5 of the AD Agreement;  
• Guatemala's failure to "inform all interested parties of the essential facts under consideration 
which form the basis for the decision whether to  apply definitive measures" is inconsistent 
with Article 6.9 of the AD Agreement;  
• Guatemala's recourse to "best information av ailable" for the purpose of making its final 
dumping determination is in consistent with Article 6.8 of the AD Agreement;   WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 147 
 
 
  • Guatemala's failure to take into account imports  by MATINSA in its determination of injury 
and causality is inconsistent with Articles 3.1, 3.2 and 3.5 of the AD Agreement; and  
• Guatemala's failure to evaluate all relevant factors for the examination of the impact of the 
allegedly dumped imports on the domestic indus try is inconsistent with Article 3.4.  
The DSB adopted the Panel Report on 17 November 2000.  
56. WT/DS155 – Argentina – Measures Affectin g the Export of Bovine Hides and the 
Import of Finished Leather 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 24 December 1998, the EC requested consultations with Argentina concerning certain measures taken by Argentina on the export of bovine hides and the 
import of finished leather. The EC alleged that the de facto export prohibition on raw and semi-tanned 
bovine hides (which is implemented in part thr ough the authorization granted by the Argentinian 
authorities to the Argentinian tanning industry to pa rticipate in customs control procedures of hides 
before export) is in violation of GATT Articles; XI:1 (which outlaws 
de jure  export prohibitions and 
measures of equivalent effect); and X:3(a) (which requires uniform and impartial administration of laws and regulations) to the extent that personnel of  the Argentinian Chamber for the tanning industry 
are authorized to assist Argentinian customs aut horities. The EC also claimed that the "additional 
value added tax" of 9 per cent on imports of products into Argentin a and the "advance turnover tax" 
of 3 per cent based on the price of imported goods  imposed on operators when importing goods into 
Argentina are in violation of GATT Article III:2 (which prohibits tax discrimination of foreign products which are like, directly competitive or substitutable to domestic products).  
On 31 May 1999, the EC requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 16 June 1999, the 
DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Further to a second request to establish a panel by the EC, 
the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 26 July 1999. On 31 January 2000, the Panel was composed. The Panel circulated its report on 19 December 2000. The Panel concluded that:  
• it has not been proved that Resolution (ANA) No . 2235/96 is inconsiste nt with Argentina's 
obligations under Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994;  
• Resolution (ANA) No. 2235/96 is inconsiste nt with Argentina's obligations under 
Article X:3(a) of the GATT 1994;  
• General Resolution (DGI) No. 3431/91 is inconsiste nt with Article III:2, first sentence, of the 
GATT 1994;  
• General Resolution (DGI) No. 3543/92 is inconsiste nt with Article III:2, first sentence, of the 
GATT 1994;  
• General Resolutions (DGI) No. 3431/91 and 3543/ 92, although they fall within the terms of 
paragraph (d) of Article XX of the GATT 1994, fail to meet the requirements of the chapeau of Article XX and are therefore not justified under Article XX as a whole;  
• there is nullification or impairment of the benefits accruing to the European Communities 
under the GATT 1994.  
The DSB adopted the Panel Report on 16 February 2001.  WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 148 
 
 
  57. WT/DS152 – United States – Sections 301 – 310 of the Trade Act 1974 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 25 November 1998, the EC requested consultations 
with the US in respect of Title III, chapter 1 (sections 301-310) of the US Trade Act of 1974 (the Trade Act), as amended, and in pa rticular sections 306 and 305 of th is Act. The EC alleged that:  
• by imposing strict time limits within which unilateral determinations mu st be made and trade 
sanctions taken, sections 306 and 305 of the Tr ade Act do not allow the US to comply with 
the rules of the DSU in situations where a prior multilateral ruling under the DSU on conformity of measures taken pursuant to im plementation of DSB recommendations has not 
been adopted by the DSB.  
• the DSU procedure resulting in a multilateral finding, even if initiated immediately after the 
end of the reasonable period of time for im plementation, cannot be finalised, nor can 
subsequent DSU procedure for seeking comp ensation or suspension of concessions be 
complied with, within the time limits of sections 306 and 305.  
• Title III, chapter 1(sections 301-310) of the Trade Act, as amended, and in particular sections 
306 and 305 of the Act, are inconsistent w ith Articles 3, 21, 22 and 23 of the DSU; 
Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement; and Artic les I, II, III, VIII and XI of GATT 1994.  
• the Trade Act nullifies and impairs benefits accruing, directly or indirectly, to it under GATT 
1994, and also impedes the objectives of GATT 1994 and of the WTO.  
On 26 January 1999, the EC requested the establishm ent of a panel. At its meeting on 17 February 
1999, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish a panel 
by the EC, the DSB established a panel at its me eting on 2 March 1999. Braz il;  Canada;  Colombia; 
Costa Rica;  Cuba;  Dominica;  Dominican Republic;  Ecuador;  Hong Kong, China; India;  Israel;  Jamaica; , Japan;  Korea;  St. Lucia and Thaila nd reserved their third-party rights. On 24 March 1999, 
the EC requested the Director-General to determ ine the composition of the Panel. On 31 March 1999, 
the Panel was composed. The report of the panel was circulated to Members on 22 December 1999. 
The Panel found that Sections 304(a)(2)(A), 305(a) a nd 306(b) of the US Trade Act of 1974 were not 
inconsistent with Article 23.2(a) or (c) of the DSU or with any of the GATT 1994 provisions cited. 
The panel noted that its findings were based in full or in part on US undertakings articulated in the 
Statement of Administrative Action approved by the US Congress at the time it implemented the 
Uruguay Round agreements and confirmed in the statem ents by the US to the panel. The panel stated 
therefore that should those undertakings be repudiated or in any other way removed, its findings of conformity would no longer be warranted. The DSB adopted the panel report at its meeting on 27 
January 2000.  
58. WT/DS146, WT/DS175 – India – Measures Affecting the Automotive Sector 
Complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS 146). On 6 October 1998, the EC requested 
consultations with India concerning certain measures affecting the automotive sector being applied by 
India. The EC stated that the measures include  the documents entitled "Export and Import Policy, 
1997-2002", "ITC (HS Classification) Export and Import Policy 1997-2002" ("Classification"), and 
"Public Notice No. 60 (PN/97-02) of 12 December 1997, Export and Import Policy April 1997-March 
2002", and any other legislative or administrative provision implemented or consolidated by these policies, as well as MoUs signed by the Indian Government with certain manufacturers of automobiles. The EC contended that:   WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 149 
 
 
  • under these measures, imports of complete auto mobiles and of certain parts and components 
were subject to a system of non-automatic import licenses.  
• in accordance with Public Notice No. 60, impor t licenses might be granted only to local joint 
venture manufacturers that had signed an MoU with the Indian Government, whereby they 
undertook, inter alia , to comply with certain local conten t and export balancing requirements.  
• The EC alleged violations of Articles III a nd XI of GATT 1994, and Article 2 of the TRIMs 
Agreement.  
On 1 May 1999, the United States requested cons ultations (WT/DS175) with India in respect of 
certain Indian measures affecting trade and investme nt in the motor vehicle sector. The United States 
contended that the measures in question required ma nufacturing firms in the motor vehicle sector to:  
(i) achieve specified levels of local content; (ii)  achieve a neutralization of foreign exchange by 
balancing the value of certain imports with the va lue of exports of cars and components over a stated 
period; and (iii) limit imports to a value based on the previous year's exports.  
According to the United States, these measures were  enforceable under Indian law and rulings, and 
manufacturing firms in the motor vehicle sector must comply with these requirements in order to 
obtain Indian import licenses for certain motor vehicle parts and components. The United States 
considered that these measures violate the oblig ations of India under Articles III and XI of GATT 
1994, and Article 2 of the TRIMS Agreement.  
On 15 May 2000, the US requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 19 June 2000, the 
DSB deferred the establishment of a Panel. Further to a second request to establish a panel by the US, 
the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 27 July 2000. The EC, Japan and Korea reserved their 
third-party rights.  
On 12 October 2000, the EC also requested the establis hment of a panel. At its  meeting on 23 October 
2000, the DSB deferred the establishment of a Panel.  Further to a second request by the EC, the DSB 
established a panel at its meeting of 17 November 2000. Since a panel had already been established 
with a similar mandate in the framework of the abovementioned case WT/DS175 , the DSB decided 
to join the panel with the already established panel in that case pursuant to Article 9.1 of the DSU. 
Japan reserved its third-party rights. On 14 Novemb er 2000, the US requested the Director-General to 
determine the composition of the Panel. On 24 November 2000, the Panel was composed.  
On 21 December 2001, the Panel circulated its repor t to the Members. The Panel concluded that:  
• India had acted inconsistently with its oblig ations under Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 by 
imposing on automotive manufacturers an obligatio n to use a certain proportion of local parts 
and components in the manufacture of cars and automotive vehicles ("indigenization" condition);  
• India had acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article XI of the GATT 1994 by imposing on automotive manufacturers an obligat ion to balance any importation of certain 
kits and components with exports of equivalent value ("trade balancing" condition); and,  
• India had acted inconsistently with its oblig ations under Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 by 
imposing, in the context of the trade balancing condition, an obligation to offset the amount of any purchases of previously imported restricted kits and components on the Indian market, by 
exports of equivalent value.  WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 150 
 
 
  The Panel recommended that the DSB requests India to  bring its measures into conformity with its 
obligations under the WTO Agreements.  
On 31 January 2002, India appealed the above Panel Report. In particular, India sought review of the 
following Panel's conclusion on the grounds that they are in error and based upon erroneous findings 
on issues of law and related legal instruments:  
• Articles 11 and 19.1 of the DSU required it to address the question of whether the measures found to be inconsistent with Articles III:4 and XI:1 of the GATT had been brought into conformity with the GATT as a result of measures taken by India during the course of the proceedings, and  
• the enforcement of the export obligations th at automobile manufacturers incurred until 1 
April 2001 under India's former import licensing scheme is inconsistent with Articles III:4 
and XI:1 of the GATT.  
On 14 March 2002, India withdrew its appeal. Furt her to India's withdrawal of its appeal, the 
Appellate Body issued a short Report outlining the pr ocedural history of the case. At the DSB meeting 
on 5 April 2002, the US commended India's decision to withdraw its appeal and shared some of 
India's reservations with regard to Section VIII of  the Panel Report. The EC considered that the 
Panel's findings were justified. Despite its decision to withdraw its appeal as a result of the introduction of its new auto policy, India indicated that the findings contained in Section VIII were outside of the Panel's terms of re ference and were both factually and legally incorrect. India requested 
that the DSB adopt only a part of the Panel Repor t and consider the adoption of Section VIII only at 
its next meeting. The EC responded that the Reports  should be adopted uncondi tionally by the parties, 
thus there was no justification for India's request. The DSB proceeded with the adoption in full of the Appellate Body and Panel reports.  
59. WT/DS141 – European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Cotton-type Bed Linen from India 
Complaint by India. On 3 August 1998, India requ ested consultations with the EC in respect of 
Council Regulation (EC) No 2398/97 of 28 November 1997 on imports of cotton-type bed-linen from India. India asserted that the EC initiated anti-dum ping proceedings against imports of cotton- type 
bed-linen from India by publishing a notice of in itiation in September 1996. Provisional anti-dumping 
duties were imposed by EC Council Regulation No  1069/97 of 12 June 1997. This was followed by 
the imposition of definitive duties in accordance with the above-mentioned EC Council Regulation 
No 2398/97 of 28 November 1997.  India contended that:  
• the determination of standing, the initiation, th e determination of dumping and injury as well 
as the explanations of the EC authorities' findings are inconsistent with WTO law.  
• the EC authorities' establishment of the facts wa s not proper and that the EC's evaluation of 
facts was not unbiased and objective.  
• the EC has not taken into account the special situation of India as a developing country.  
• there were violations of Articles 2.2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3. 4, 3.5, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.8, 6, 12.2.2, and 15 of 
the Anti-Dumping Agreement, and Articles I and VI of the GATT 1994.  
On 7 September 1999, India requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 22 September 1999, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish a panel  WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 151 
 
 
  by India, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 27 October 1999. Egypt, Japan and the US 
reserved their third-party rights. On 12 January 2000, India requested the Director-General to 
determine the composition of the Panel. On 24 Ja nuary 2000, the Panel was composed. The panel 
report was circulated on 30 October 2000. The panel concluded that:  
(i) the EC did not act inconsistently with its obligat ions under Articles 2.2, 2.2.2, 3.1, 3.4, 3.5, 5.3, 
5.4, and 12.2.2 of the AD Agreement in:  
• calculating the amount for profit in constructing normal value;  
• considering all imports from India (and Egypt and Pakistan) as dumped in the analysis of injury caused by dumped imports;  
• considering information for producers compri sing the domestic industry but not among the 
sampled producers in analyzing the state of the industry;  
• examining the accuracy and adequacy of  the evidence prior to initiation;  
• establishing industry support for the application; and  
• providing public notice of its final determination.  
(ii) The panel, however, also concluded that the EC  acted inconsistently w ith its obligations under 
Articles 2.4.2, 3.4, and 15 of the AD Agreement in:  
• determining the existence of margins of dumping on the basis of a methodology incorporating the practice of zeroing;  
• failing to evaluate all relevant factors having a bearing on the state of the domestic industry, and specifically all the factors set forth in Article 3.4;  
• considering information for producers not part  of the domestic industry as defined by the 
investigating authority in analyzin g the state of the industry; and  
• failing to explore possibilities of constructive re medies before applying anti-dumping duties.  
On 1 December 2000, the EC notified the DSB of its intention to appeal certain issues of law covered 
in the Panel Report and legal interpretations developed by the Panel. The Appellate Body circulated its report on 1 March 2001. The Appellate Body:  
(i) upheld the finding of the Panel that the practice of "zeroing" when establishing "the existence of margins of dumping", as applied by the EC in the anti-dumping investigation at issue in this dispute, is inconsistent with Article 2.4. 2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement;  
(ii) reversed the findings of the Panel that:  
• the method for calculating amounts for administra tive, selling and general costs and profits 
provided for in Article 2.2.2(ii) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement may be applied where there 
is data on administrative, selling and general co sts and profits for only one other exporter or 
producer; and  WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 152 
 
 
  • in calculating the amount for profits under Article 2.2.2(ii) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, 
a Member may exclude sales by other exporters or  producers that are not made in the ordinary 
course of trade; and  
(iii) as a consequence, concluded that the EC, in calculating amounts for administrative, selling and general costs and profits in the anti-dumping investigati on at issue in this dispute, acted inconsistently 
with Article 2.2.2(ii) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body 
report, on 12 March 2001.  
60. WT/DS139, WT/DS142 – Canada – Certain Measures Affecting the Automotive Industry 
Complaints by Japan and the European Communities. On 3 July 1998, Japan requested consultations with Canada in respect of measures being take n by Canada in the automotive industry. Japan 
contended that under Canadian legislation impl ementing an automotive products agreement (Auto 
Pact) between the US and Canada, only a limited num ber of motor vehicle manufacturers are eligible 
to import vehicles into Canada duty free and to distribute the motor vehicles in Canada at the 
wholesale and retail distribution levels. Japan furt her contended that this duty-free treatment is 
contingent on two requirements:  
1. a Canadian value-added (CVA) content requireme nt that applies to both goods and services; 
and 
2. a manufacturing and sales requirement. Japan alleges that these measures are inconsistent 
with Articles I:1, III:4 and XXIV of GATT 1994, Article 2 of the TRIMs Agreement, 
Article 3 of the SCM Agreement, and Articles II, VI and XVII of GATS.  
On 17 August 1998, the EC requested consultations with Canada in respect of the same measures 
raised by Japan in WT/DS139 and cites the same provisions alleged to be in violation, except for Article XXIV of GATT 1994, which was cite d by Japan but is not cited by the EC.  
On 12 November 1998, Japan requested the establishmen t of a panel in respect of WT/DS139. At is 
meeting on 25 November 1998, the DSB deferred the est ablishment of a panel. Further to requests to 
establish a panel by Japan and the EC, at its mee ting on 1 February 1999, the DSB established a single 
panel, pursuant to Article 9.1 of the DSU, to examine the complaints WT/DS139 and WT/DS142. India, Korea, and the US reserved their third- party rights. On 15 March 1999, the EC and Japan 
requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the Panel. On 25 March 1999, the Panel was composed. The report of the panel was circulated to Members on 11 February 2000. The 
panel found that:  
• the conditions under which Canada  granted its import duty exemp tion were inconsistent with 
Article I of GATT 1994 and not justifie d under Article XXIV of GATT 1994.  
• the application of the CVA requirements to be inconsistent with Article III:4 of GATT 1994.  
• the import duty exemption constitutes a prohibited export subsidy in violation of 
Article 3.1(a) of the SCM Agreement.  
• the manner in which Canada conditioned access to  the import duty exemption is inconsistent 
with Article II of GATS and could not  justified under Article V of GATS.   WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 153 
 
 
  • the application of the CVA requirements constitut es a violation of Article XVII of the GATS.  
On 2 March 2000, Canada notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the panel. The Appellate Body report was circulated to Members on 31 
May 2000. The Appellate Body:  
• reversed the panel's conclusion that Article 3.1(b) of the Subsidies Agreement did not extend 
to contingency "in fact".  
• considered that the panel had failed to examine whether the measure at issue affected trade in 
services as required under Article I:1 of the GATS.  
• reversed the panel's conclusion that the impor t duty exemption was inconsistent with the 
requirements of Article II:1 of the GATS as we ll as the panel's findings leading to that 
conclusion.  
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body 
report, on 19 June 2000.  
61. WT/DS138 – United States – Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Certain Hot-Rolled 
Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products Originating in the United Kingdom 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 30 June 1998, the EC requested consultations with the US in respect of the alleged imposition of counterva iling duties on certain hot-rolled lead and bismuth 
carbon steel (leaded bars) from the UK. The EC asserte d that the US imposed countervailing duties of 
1.69 per cent on United Engineering Steels Ltd (UES ) for the review period 1 January 1994 to 31 
December 1994, and of 2.4 per cent for the review period 1 January 1995 to 20 March 1995, on the 
basis of subsidies which had been granted to Britis h Steel Corporation (BSC). The EC also contended 
that the US imposed countervailing duties on British Steel plc (BSplc) / British Steel Engineering 
Steels LTD (BSES) for the review period 1 January 1996 to 31 December 1996 on the basis of subsidies granted to BSC before its privatizati on in 1988. The EC alleged that these impositions of 
countervailing duties constitute a violation of Arti cles 1.1(b), 10, 14 and 19.4 of the Subsidies 
Agreement.  
On 14 January 1999, the EC requested the establishm ent of a panel. At its meeting on 1 February 
1999, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish a panel 
by the EC, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 17 February 1999. Brazil and Mexico 
reserved their third-party rights. On 16 March 1999, the Panel was composed. The report of the panel 
was circulated to Members on 23 December 1999. The panel found that by imposing countervailing 
duties on 1994, 1995 and 1996 imports of leaded ba rs produced by UES and BSES respectively, the 
US violated Article 10 of the Subsidies Agreement. In reaching this conclusion, the panel noted that 
the presumption of "benefit" flowing from untied, non-recurring "financial contributions" even after 
changes in ownership was rebutted in the circumstances surrounding the changes in ownership leading to the creation of UES and BSplc/BSES respectively, 
inter alia , because the change in 
ownership involved the payment of  consideration for the productive assets etc. acquired by those 
entities from BSC. According to the panel, the US  should therefore have examined whether the 
production of leaded bars by UES and BSplc/BSES respectively, and not BSC, was subsidised.  
On 27 January 2000, the US notified its intenti on to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the pa nel. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members 
on 10 May 2000. The Appellate Body upheld all of the findings of the panel that were appealed but on 
one point corrected the reasoning of the panel.  WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 154 
 
 
  The DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and th e panel report, as upheld by the Appellate Body 
report, on 7 June 2000.  
62. WT/DS136, WT/DS162 – United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 9 June 1998, the EC requested consultations with the 
US in respect of the alleged failure of the US to repeal its Anti-Dumping Act of 1916. The EC 
contended that the US Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 is s till in force and is applicable to the import and 
internal sale of any foreign product irrespective of its origin, including products originating in 
countries which are WTO Members. The EC also alle ged that the 1916 Act exists in the US statute 
books in parallel with the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, which includes the US implementing 
legislation of multilateral Anti-Dumping provisions. Th e EC alleged violations of Articles III:4, VI:1, 
and VI:2 of GATT 1994, Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement, and Articles 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  
On 1 November 1998, the EC requested the establishm ent of a panel. At its meeting on 25 November 
1998, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish a panel 
by the EC, the DSB established a panel at its mee ting on 1 February 1999. India, Japan and Mexico 
reserved their third-party rights. On 1 April 1999,  the Panel was composed. The report of the panel 
was circulated to Members on 31 Marc h 2000. The panel considered that:  
• Article VI:1 of GATT 1994 applies to any situ ation where a Member addresses the type of 
transnational price discrimination defined in that Article.  
• on the basis of the terms of the 1916 Act, its legislative history and its interpretation by US 
courts, the transnational price discrimination t est found in the 1916 Act met the definition of 
Article VI:1 of GATT 1994.  
• by not providing exclusively for the injury test set out in Article VI, the 1916 Act violated Article VI:1 of the GATT 1994;  
• by providing for the imposition of treble damages, fines or imprisonment, instead of anti-dumping duties, the 1916 Act violated Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994;  
• by not providing for a number of procedural requirements found in the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the 1916 Act violated Articles 1, 4 and 5.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; and  
• by violating Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT 1994, the 1916 Act violated Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.  
On 29 May 2000, the US notified its intention to app eal certain issues of law and legal interpretations 
developed by the panel. The Appellate Body exam ined this appeal with that of WT/DS162. The 
Appellate Body report was circulated to Members on 28 May 2000. The Appellate Body upheld all of 
the findings and conclusions of the panel that were appealed.  
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as upheld by the Appellate Body report, on 26 September 2000.   WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 155 
 
 
  63. WT/DS135 – European Communities – Measu res Affecting Asbestos and Products 
Containing Asbestos 
Complaint by Canada. On 28 May 19 98, Canada requested consultations with the EC in respect of 
measures imposed by France, in particular Decr ee of 24 December 1996, with respect to the 
prohibition of asbestos and products containing asb estos, including a ban on imports of such goods. 
Canada alleged that these measures violate Articles 2,  3 and 5 of the SPS Agreement, Article 2 of the 
TBT Agreement, and Articles III, XI and XIII of GATT 1994. Canada also al leged nullification and 
impairment of benefits accruing to it under the various agreements cited.  
On 8 October 1998, Canada requested the establishm ent of a panel. At its meetings on 21 October 
1998, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish a panel 
by Canada, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 25 November 1998. The US reserved its 
third-party rights. The report of the panel was ci rculated to Members on 18 September 2000. The 
Panel found that:  
• the "prohibition" part of the Decree of 24 Dece mber 1996 does not fall within the scope of the 
TBT Agreement;  
• the part of the Decree relating to "exceptions" does fall within the scope of the TBT 
Agreement. However, as Canada had not made any claim concerning the compatibility with the TBT Agreement of the part of the Decree relating to exceptions, the Panel refrained from reaching any conclusion with regard to the latter;  
• chrysotile asbestos fibres as such and fibres that  can be substituted for them as such are like 
products within the meaning of Article III:4 of the GATT 1994;  
• the asbestos-cement products and the fibro-ceme nt products for which sufficient information 
had been submitted to the Panel are like products within the meaning of Article III:4 of the GATT 1994;  
• with respect to the products found to be like, the Decree violates Article III:4 of the GATT 1994;  
• insofar as it introduces a treatment of these products that is discriminatory under Article III:4, the Decree is justified as such  and in its implementation by the provisions of paragraph (b) 
and the introductory clause of Article XX of the GATT 1994;  
• Canada has not established that it suffered non- violation nullification or impairment of a 
benefit within the meaning of Ar ticle XXIII:1(b) of the GATT 1994.  
On 23 October 2000, Canada notified the Dispute Settlement Body of its decision to appeal certain 
issues of law covered in the Pane l Report and legal interpretations  developed by the Panel. The 
Appellate Body circulated its report on 12 March 2001. The Appellate Body:  
• ruled that the French Decree, prohibiting asbestos and asbestos -containing products had not 
been shown to be inconsistent with the Eu ropean Communities' obligations under the WTO 
agreements;  
• reversed the Panel's finding that the TBT Agreem ent does not apply to the prohibitions in the 
measure concerning asbestos and asbestos-cont aining products and found that the TBT 
Agreement applies to the measure viewed as an integrated whole. The Appellate Body WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 156 
 
 
  concluded that it was unable to examine Canada's  claims that the measure was inconsistent 
with the TBT Agreement;  
• reversed the Panel's findings with respect to "like products", under Article III:4 of the GATT 
1994. The Appellate Body ruled, in particular, that the Panel erred in excluding the health 
risks associated with asbestos from its examination of "likeness".  
• reversed the Panel's conclusion that the measur e is inconsistent with Article III:4 of the 
GATT 1994. The Appellate Body itself examined Canada's claims under Article III:4 of the 
GATT 1994 and ruled that Canada has not satisfied its burden of proving the existence of 
"like products" under that provision; and  
• upheld the Panel's conclusion, under Article XX(b) of the GATT 1994, that the French 
Decree is "necessary to protect human … life or health".  
In this appeal, the Appellate Body adopted an add itional procedure "for the purposes of this appeal 
only" to deal with amicus curiae  submissions. The Appellate Body received, and refused, 17 
applications to file such a submission. The A ppellate Body also refused to accept 14 unsolicited 
submissions from non-governmental organizations that were not submitted under the additional procedure.  
At its meeting of 5 April 2001, the DSB adopted th e Appellate Body report and the panel report, as 
modified by the Appellate Body report.  
64. WT/DS132 – Mexico – Anti-Dumping Investigation of High-Fructose Corn Syrup 
(HFCS) from the United States 
Complaint by the United States. On 8 May 1998, th e US requested consultations with Mexico in 
respect of an anti-dumping investigation of high -fructose corn syrup (HFCS) grades 42 and 55 from 
the US, conducted by Mexico. The US alleged that on 27 February 1997, the Government of Mexico 
published a notice initiating this anti-dumping investig ation on the basis of an application dated 14 
January 1997 from the Mexican National Chamber of  Sugar and Alcohol Producers. The US further 
alleged that on 23 January 1998, Mexico issued a no tice of final determination of dumping and injury 
in that investigation, and consequently imposed definitive anti-dumping measures on these imports from the United States. The US contended that the manner in which the application for an anti-dumping investigation was made, as well as the manner in which a determination of threat of injury was made, is inconsistent with Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 12 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  
On 8 October 1998, the US requested the establishm ent of a panel. At its meeting on 21 October 
1998, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish a panel 
by the US, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 25 November 1998.  Jamaica and Mauritius 
reserved their third-party rights. On 13 January 1999, the Panel was composed. The report of the 
panel was circulated to Members on 28 January 2000. The Panel found that:  
• Mexico's initiation of the anti-dumping inves tigation on imports of HFCS from the US was 
consistent with the requirements of Articles 5.2, 5.3, 5.8, 12.1 and 12.1.1(iv) of the Anti 
Dumping Agreement.  
• Mexico's imposition of the definitive anti-dumping measure on imports of HFCS from the US 
was inconsistent with the following provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement: Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.7 and 3.7(i); Article 7.4; Article 10.2; Article 10.4; and Articles 12.2 and 12.2.2.   WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 157 
 
 
  The DSB adopted the panel report at its meeting on 24 February 2000.  
65. WT/DS126 – Australia – Subsidies Provided to  Producers and Exporters of Automotive 
Leather 
Complaint by the United States. On 4 May 1998, th e US requested consultations with Australia in 
respect of prohibited subsidies allegedly provid ed to Australian producers and exporters of 
automotive leather, including subsidies provided to Ho we and Company Proprietary Ltd. (or any of its 
affiliated and/or parent companies), which allege dly involve preferential government loans of about 
A$25 million and non-commercial term s and grants of about A$30 million. The US contended that 
these measures violate the obligations of Australia  under Article 3 of the Subsidies Agreement.  
Further to the US's request, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 22 June 1998 (see also 
WT/DS106). On 27 October 1998, the US request ed the Director-General to determine the 
composition of the Panel. On 2 November 1998, the Panel was composed. The report of the Panel was 
circulated to Members on 25 May 1999. The Panel found that the loan from the Australian 
Government to Howe/ALH is not a subsidy contin gent upon export performance within the meaning 
of Article 3.1(a) of the SCM Agreement, but that the payments under the grant contract are subsidies 
within the meaning of Article 1 of the SCM Agreement, which are contingent upon export 
performance within the meaning of Article 3.1(a) of that Agreement. At its meeting on 16 June 1999, 
the DSB adopted the Panel report.  
66. WT/DS122 – Thailand – Anti-Dumping Duties on Angles, Shapes and Sections of Iron or Non-Alloy Steel and H-Beams from Poland 
Complaint by Poland. On 6 April 1998, Poland requ ested consultations with Thailand concerning the 
imposition of final anti-dumping duties on imports of angles, shapes and sections of iron or non alloy 
steel and H-beams. Poland asserted that provisiona l anti dumping duties were imposed by Thailand on 
27 December 1996, and a final anti dumping dut y of 27.78% of CIF value for these products, 
produced or exported by any Polish producer or exporter, was imposed on 26 May 1997. Poland 
further asserted that Thailand refused two requests by Poland for disclosure of findings. Poland 
contended that these actions by Thailand violate Articles 2, 3, 5 and 6 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement.  
On 13 October 1999, Poland requested the establishmen t of a panel. At its meeting on 27 October 
1999, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish a panel 
by Poland, the DSB established a panel at its me eting on 19 November 1999. The EC, Japan and the 
US reserved their third-party rights. On 20 Dece mber 1999, the Panel was composed. The report was 
circulated to Members on 28 Septembe r 2000. The Panel concluded that:  
(i) Poland failed to establish that Thailand had acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 2 
of the Anti-Dumping Agreement or Article VI of the GATT 1994 in the calculation of the amount for profit in constructing normal value.  
(ii) Thailand's imposition of the definitive anti-dum ping measure on imports of H-beams from Poland 
was inconsistent with the requirements of Artic le 3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement in that: 
• inconsistently with the second sentence of Article  3.2 and Article 3.1, the Thai authorities did 
not consider, on the basis of an "objective examination" of "positive evidence" in the 
disclosed factual basis, the price effects of dumped imports;  WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 158 
 
 
  • inconsistently with Articles 3.4 and 3.1, the Thai investigating authorities failed to consider 
certain factors listed in Article 3.4, and failed to provide an adequate explanation of how the 
determination of injury could be reached on the basis of an "unbiased or objective evaluation" 
or an "objective examination" of "positive ev idence" in the disclosed factual basis; and  
• inconsistently with Articles 3.5 and 3.1, the Th ai authorities made a determination of a causal 
relationship between dumped imports and any possi ble injury on the basis of (a) their findings 
concerning the price effects of dumped imports, which the Panel had already found to be 
inconsistent with the second sentence of Article  3.2 and Article 3.1; and (b) their findings 
concerning injury, which the Panel had already f ound to be inconsistent  with Article 3.4 and 
3.1. 
(iii) under Article 3.8 of the DSU, in cases where there is infringement of the obligations assumed under a covered agreement, the action is considered prima facie to cons titute a case of nullification or 
impairment of benefits under that agreement, and that, accordingly, to the extent Thailand has acted 
inconsistently with the provisions of the AD Agreem ent, it has nullified or impaired benefits accruing 
to Poland under that Agreement.  
On 23 October 2000, Thailand notified the DSB of its decision to appeal certain issues of law covered 
in the Panel Report and legal interpretations developed by the Panel. The Appellate Body circulated its report on 12 March 2001. The Appellate Body:  
• upheld the Panel's conclusion that with respect to the claims under Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the 
AD Agreement, the request for the establishment of a panel submitted by Poland in this case 
was sufficient to meet the requirements of Article 6.2 of the DSU;  
• reversed the finding of the Panel that the AD Agreement requires a panel reviewing the imposition of an anti-dumping duty to consider  only the facts, evidence and reasoning that 
were disclosed to, or discernible by, Polish firms at the time of the final determination of dumping. The Appellate Body was of the view that there was no basis for the Panel's reasoning, either in Article 3.1 of the AD Ag reement, which lays down the obligations of 
Members with respect to the determination of injury, or in Article 17.6 of the AD Agreement, which sets out the standard of review for panels.  
• Although having reversed the reasoning of the Pa nel on this issue, it left undisturbed the 
Panel's main findings of violation;  
• upheld the Panel's conclusion under Article 3.4 of the AD Agreement. The Appellate Body agreed with the Panel that Article 3.4 requires a mandatory evaluation of all the factors listed 
in that provision,  
• concluded that the Panel did not err in its application of the burden of proof, or in the application of the standard of review under  Article 17.6(i) of the AD Agreement.   
At its meeting of 5 April 2001,the DSB adopted th e Appellate Body report and the panel report, as 
modified by the Appellate Body report.  
67. WT/DS121 – Argentina – Safeguard Me asures on Imports of Footwear 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 3 Ap ril 1998, the EC requested consultations with 
Argentina in respect of provisional and definiti ve safeguard measures imposed by Argentina on 
imports of footwear. The EC asserted that by Resolution 226/97 of 24 February 1997, Argentina  WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 159 
 
 
  imposed a provisional safeguard measure in the fo rm of specific duties on imports of footwear 
effective from 25 February 1997, which was foll owed by Resolution 987/97, which imposed a 
definitive safeguard measure on these imports effect ive from 13 September 1997. The EC alleged that 
the above measures violate Articles 2, 4, 5, 6 and 12 of the Agreement on Safeguards, and 
Article XIX of GATT 1994.  
On 10 June 1998, the EC requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 22 June 1998, the 
DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Furthe r to a second request to establish a panel, the DSB 
established a panel at its meeting on 23 July 1998.  Brazil, Indonesia, Paraguay, the US and Uruguay 
reserved their third-parties rights. On 15 Septembe r 1998, the Panel was composed. The report of the 
panel was circulated on 25 June 1999.  The panel found that Argentina's measure is inconsistent with 
Articles 2 and 4 of the Agreement on Safeguards.  
On 15 September 1999, Argentina notified its inten tion to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the Pa nel. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members 
on 14 December 1999. The Appellate Body upheld the panel's finding that Argentina's measure is 
inconsistent with Articles 2 and 4 of the Agreemen t on Safeguards, but reversed certain findings and 
conclusions of the panel in respect of the rela tionship between the Agreement on Safeguards and 
Article XIX of GATT 1994 and the justificati on of imposing safeguard measures only on non-
MERCOSUR third country sources of supply.  
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and th e Panel Report, as modified by the Appellate 
Body Report, on 12 January 2000.  
68. WT/DS114 – Canada – Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products 
Complaint by the European Communities and their member States. On 19 December 1997, the EC 
requested consultations with Canada in respect of the alleged lack of protection of inventions by 
Canada in the area of pharmaceuticals under the re levant provisions of the Canadian implementing 
legislation, in particular the Patent Act. The EC alleged that Canada's legislation is not compatible 
with its obligations under the TRIPS Agreement, b ecause it does not provide for the full protection of 
patented pharmaceutical inventions for the entire duration of the term of protection envisaged by 
Articles 27.1, 28 and 33 of the TRIPS Agreement.  
On 11 November 1998, the EC requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 25 November 1998, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Further to a second request to establish a panel by the EC, the DSB established a pane l at its meeting on 1 February 1999. Australia, 
Brazil, Colombia, Cuba, India, Israel, Japan, Pola nd, Switzerland, Thailand and the United States 
reserved their third-party rights. On 15 March 1999, the EC and their member States requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the Panel. On 25 March 1999, the Panel was composed. The report of the panel was circulat ed to Members on 17 March 2000. The panel found 
that:  
• the so-called regulatory review exception provi ded for in Canada's Patent Act (Section 
55.2(1)) – the first aspect of the Patent Act cha llenged by the EC – was not inconsistent with 
Article 27.1 of the TRIPS Agreement and was c overed by the exception in Article 30 of the 
TRIPS Agreement and therefore not inconsistent with Article 28.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. Under the regulatory review exception, potential competitors of a patent owner are permitted 
to use the patented invention, without the authorization of the patent owner during the term of the patent, for the purposes of obtaining government marketing approval, so that they will 
have regulatory permission to sell in competiti on with the patent owner by the date on which 
the patent expires.  WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 160 
 
 
  • the so-called stockpiling excepti on (Section 55.2(2)) –the second aspect of the Patent Act 
challenged by the EC, was inconsistent with Article 28.1 of the TRIPS Agreement and was 
not covered by the exception in Article 30 of  the TRIPS Agreement. Under the stockpiling 
exception, competitors are allowed to manufact ure and stockpile patented goods during a 
certain period before the patent expires, but th e goods cannot be sold until after the patent 
expires. The panel considered that, unlike th e regulatory review exception, the stockpiling 
exception constituted a substantial curtailment of  the exclusionary rights required to be 
granted to patent owners under Article 28.1 to such an extent that it could not be considered 
to be a limited exception within the meaning of Article 30 of the TRIPS Agreement.  
The DSB adopted the panel report at its meeting on 7 April 2000.  
69. WT/DS108 – United States – Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations" 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 18 November 1997, the EC requested consultations 
with the US in respect of Sections 921-927 of the US Internal Revenue Code  and related measures, 
establishing special tax treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations" (FSC). The EC contended that these provisions were inconsistent with US ob ligations under Articles III:4 and XVI of the GATT 
1994, Articles 3.1(a) and (b) of the Subsidies Agr eement, and Articles 3 and 8 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture.  
On 1 July 1998, the EC requested the establishment of a Panel. In the request for a panel, the EC 
invoked Article 3.1(a) and (b) of the Subsidies Ag reement, and Articles 3 and 8, 9 and 10 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture, and did not pursue the claims under the GATT 1994. At its meeting on 23 
July 1998, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Further to a second request to establish a 
panel by the EC, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 22 Septembe r 1998. Barbados, Canada 
and Japan reserved their third-parties rights. On 9 November 1998, the Panel was composed. The report of the panel was circulated to Members on 8 October 1999. The panel found that, through the 
FSC scheme, the United States had acted inconsistently  with its obligations under Article 3.1(a) of the 
Subsidies Agreement as well as with its obligations  under Article 3.3 of the Agreement on Agriculture 
(and consequently with its obligations under Article 8 of that Agreement).  
On 28 October 1999, the US notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed by the panel. On 2 Nove mber 1999, the US withdrew its notice of appeal 
pursuant to Rule 30 of the Working Procedures for A ppellate Review, stating that the withdrawal was 
conditional on its right to file a new notice of app eal pursuant to Rule 20 of the Working Procedures. 
On 26 November 1999, the US notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the pa nel. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members 
on 24 February 2000. The Appellate Body ruled as follows:  
• it upheld the panel's finding that the FSC measure constituted a prohibited subsidy under 
Article 3.1(a) of the SCM Agreement.  
• it reversed the panel's finding that the FSC measure involved "the provision of subsidies to 
reduce the costs of marketing exports" of agri cultural products under Article 9.1(d) of the 
Agriculture Agreement and, in consequence, re versed the panel's findings that the US had 
acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 3.3 of the Agriculture Agreement.  
• it found that the US acted inconsistently with its obligations under Articles 10.1 and 8 of the 
Agriculture Agreement by applying export subs idies, through the FSC measure, in a manner 
which results in, or threatens to lead to, ci rcumvention of its export subsidy commitments 
with respect to agricultural products.   WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 161 
 
 
  • it also emphasized that it was not ruling that a Member must choose one kind of tax system 
over another so as to be consistent w ith that Member's WTO obligations.  
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body report, at its meeting on 20 March 2000.  
70. WT/DS103, WT/DS113 – Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the 
Exportation of Dairy Products 
Complaints by the United States and New Zeal and. On 8 October 1997, the US requested 
consultations with Canada in respect of export subsidies allegedly granted by Canada on dairy 
products and the administration by Canada of th e tariff-rate quota on milk. The US contended that 
these export subsidies by Canada distort markets for dairy products and adversely affect US sales of dairy products. The US alleged violations of Articles II, X and X1 of GATT 1994, Articles 3, 4, 8, 9 
and 10 of the Agreement on Agriculture, Article 3 of  the Subsidies Agreement, and Articles 1, 2 and 3 
of the Import Licensing Agreement.  
On 29 December 1997, New Zealand requested consulta tions with Canada in respect of an alleged 
dairy export subsidy scheme commonly referred to as the "special milk classes" scheme. New Zealand 
contended that the Canadian "special milk classes" sc heme is inconsistent with Article XI of GATT, 
and Articles 3, 8, 9 and 10 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
On 2 February 1998, the US requested the establishment of a panel in respect of WT/DS103. At its 
meeting on 13 February 1998, the DSB deferred th e establishment of a panel. On 25 March 1998, 
further to requests from the US and New Zealand, the DSB established, pursuant to Article 9.1 of the DSU, a single panel to examine the disputes WT/DS103 and WT/DS113. Australia and Japan 
reserved their third-party rights. On 12 August 1998, the Panel was composed. The report of the Panel 
was circulated to Members on 17 May 1999. The Pa nel found that the measures complained against 
were inconsistent with Canada's  obligations under Article II:1(b) of GATT 1994, and Articles 3.3 and 
8 of the Agreement on Agriculture by providing export  subsidies as listed in Article 9.1(a) and 9.1(c) 
of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
On 15 July 1999, Canada notified its intention to ap peal certain issues of law and legal interpretations 
developed by the Panel. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated on 13 October 1999. The Appellate Body ruled as follows:  
• it reversed the Panel's interpretation of Article  9.1(a) and, in consequence, reversed the 
Panel's finding that Canada acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 3.3 and 8 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture.  
• it upheld the Panel's finding that Canada was in violation of Article 3.3 and 8 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture in respect of export  subsidies listed in Article 9.1(c) of the 
Agreement on Agriculture.  
• it partly reversed the Panel's finding that Cana da acted inconsistently with its obligations 
under Article II:1(b) of GATT 1994.  
At its meeting on 27 October 1999, the DSB adopted  the Appellate Body report and the Panel report, 
as modified by the Appellate Body report.  WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 162 
 
 
  71. WT/DS99 – United States – Anti-Dumping  Duty on Dynamic Random Access Memory 
Semiconductors (DRAMS) of One Megabit or Above from Korea 
Complaint by Korea. On 14 August 1997, Korea requ ested consultations with the US in respect of a 
decision of the US Department of Commerce (DoC) not to revoke the anti-dumping duty on dynamic 
random access memory semi-conductors (DRAMS) of  one megabyte or above originating from 
Korea. Korea contended that the DoC's decision w as made despite the finding that the Korean DRAM 
producers have not dumped their products for a peri od of more than three and a half consecutive 
years, and despite the existence of evidence de monstrating conclusively that Korean DRAM 
producers will not engage in dumping DRAMS in the future. Korea considered that these measures 
are in violation of Articles 6 and 11 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  
On 6 November 1997, Korea requested the establishmen t of a panel. At its meeting on 18 November 
1997, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish a panel 
by Korea, the DSB established a panel at its m eeting on 16 January 1998. On 10 March 1998, Korea 
requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the Panel. On 19 March 1998, the Panel was composed. The report of the Panel was ci rculated on 29 January 1999. The Panel found the 
measures complained of to be in violation of Article 11.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. At its meeting on 19 March 1999, the DSB adopted the Panel Report.  
72. WT/DS98 – Korea – Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Certain Dairy 
Products 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 12 Au gust 1997, the EC requested consultations with 
Korea in respect of a definitive safeguard measure  imposed by Korea on imports of certain dairy 
products. The EC contended that under the provisions  of different governmental measures, Korea has 
imposed a safeguard measure in the form of an im port quota on imports of certain dairy products. The 
EC considered that this measure is in violation of Articles 2, 4, 5 and 12 of the Agreement on 
Safeguard Measures, as well as a violation of Article XIX of GATT 1994.  
On 9 January 1998, the EC requested the establishmen t of a panel. At the DSB meeting on 22 January 
1998, the EC informed the DSB that it was, for th e time being, not pursuing the panel request. On 10 
June 1998, the EC made a another request to establish a panel. At its meeting on 22 June 1998, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Further to  another request to establish a panel by the EC, 
the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 23 July  1998. The US reserved its third party rights. On 
20 August 1998, the Panel was composed. The report of the panel was circulated to Members on 21 June 1999. The panel found that Korea's measure is inconsistent with Articles 4.2(a), and 5 of the 
Agreement on Safeguards, but rejected the EC clai ms under Article XIX of GATT 1994, Articles 2.1, 
12.1 (although it found that Korea's notifications to the Committee on Safeguards were not timely, 
and to that extent were inconsis tent with Article 12.1), 12.2 and 12.3 of the Agreement on Safeguards.  
On 15 September 1999, Korea notified its intenti on to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the Pa nel. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members 
on 14 December 1999. The Appellate Body rever sed one of the panel's conclusions on the 
interpretation of Article XIX of GATT 1994 and its  relationship with the Agreement on Safeguards; 
upheld one, but reversed another of the panel's inte rpretations of Article 5.1 of the Agreement on 
Safeguards; and concluded that Korea violated Ar ticle 12.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, thereby 
reversing in part the panel's finding.  
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and th e Panel Report, as modified by the Appellate 
Body Report, on 12 January 2000.   WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 163 
 
 
  73. WT/DS90 – India – Quantitative Restrictions  on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and 
Industrial Products 
Complaint by the United States. On 15 July 1997, the US requested consultations with India in respect 
of quantitative restrictions maintained by India on importation of a large number of agricultural, 
textile and industrial prod ucts. The US contended that these quantitative restrictions, including the 
more than 2,700 agricultural and industrial product ta riff lines notified to the WTO, are inconsistent 
with India's obligations under Articles XI:1 and XVIII:11 of GATT 1994, Article 4.2 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture, and Article 3 of th e Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures.  
On 3 October 1997, the US requested the establishm ent of a panel. At its meeting on 16 October 
1997, the DSB deferred the establishmen t of a panel. Further to a second request to establish a panel, 
the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 18 November 1997. On 10 February 1998, the US 
requested the Director-General to determine the co mposition of the Panel. On 20 February 1998, the 
Panel was composed. The report of the Panel was circulated to Members on 6 April 1999. The panel 
found that the measures at issue were inconsistent  with India's obligations under Articles XI and 
XVIII11 of GATT 1994, and to the extent that th e measures apply to products subject to the 
Agreement on Agriculture, are inconsistent with Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. The panel also found the measures to be nullifying or im pairing benefits accruing to the United States 
under GATT 1994, and the Agreement on Agriculture.  
On 26 May 1999, India notified its intention to app eal certain issues of law and legal interpretations 
developed by the Panel. The report of the Appella te Body was circulated to Members on 23 August 
1999. The Appellate Body upheld all of the finding s of the panel that were appealed from.  
The DSB adopted the Panel and Appellate Body re ports at its meeting on 22 September 1999.  
74. WT/DS87, WT/DS110 – Chile – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages 
Complaints by the European Communities. On 4 June 1997 and 15 December 1997, the EC requested 
consultations with Chile in respect of Chile's Sp ecial Sales Tax on spirits, which allegedly imposes a 
higher tax on imported spirits than on Pisco , a locally brewed spirit. The EC's second request 
(WT/DS110), takes issue with the modification to the law on taxation on alcoholic beverages passed by Chile to address the concerns of the EC in WT/DS87. The EC contended that this differential treatment of imported spirits violates Article III:2 of GATT 1994.  
On 3 October 1997, the EC requested the establishment of a panel in respect of the complaint WT/DS87. At its meeting on 16 October 1997, the DS B deferred the establishment of a panel. Further 
to a second request to establish a panel by the EC, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 18 
November 1997. Canada, Mexico, Peru and th e US reserved their third-party rights. 
 Further to the EC's complaint with respect to WT/DS110, the DSB established a panel at its meeting 
on 25 March 1998. The DSB also agreed that a single panel be established to examine the two 
complaints. Peru, Canada and the US reserved their third-party rights. On 10  and 11 June 1998, the 
EC and Chile, respectively, requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the Panel. 
On 1 July 1998, the Panel was composed. The repor t of the panel was circulated to Members on 15 
June 1999. The panel found that Chile's Transiti onal System and its New System for taxation of 
distilled alcoholic beverages was inconsis tent with Article III:2 of GATT 1994.  
On 13 September 1999, Chile notified its intenti on to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the Pa nel. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 164 
 
 
  on 13 December 1999. The Appellate Body upheld th e panel's interpretati on and application of 
Article III:2 of GATT 1994, subject to exclusion of certain considerations relie d upon by the panel.  
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and th e Panel Report, as modified by the Appellate 
Body Report, on 12 January 2000.  
75. WT/DS79 – India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical 
Products 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 28 April 1997, the EC requested consultations with 
India in respect of the alleged absence in India of patent protection for pharmaceutical and agricultural 
chemical products, and the absence of formal systems that permit the filing of patent applications of 
and provide exclusive marketing rights for such produc ts. The EC contended that this is inconsistent 
with India's obligations under Ar ticle 70, paragraphs 8 and 9, of the TRIPS Agreement (see similar 
US complaint in WT/DS50, where the Panel and Ap pellate Body reports were adopted on 16 January 
1998).  
On 9 September 1997, the EC requested the establishm ent of a panel. At its meeting on 25 September 
1997, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish a panel 
by the EC, the DSB established a panel at its mee ting on 16 October 1997. The US reserved its third-
party rights. The report of the Panel was circul ated to Members on 24 August 1998. The Panel found 
that India has not complied with its obligations under Article 70.8(a) of the TRIPS Agreement by 
failing to establish a legal basis that adequately  preserves novelty and priority in respect of 
applications for product patents for pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical inventions, and was also not in compliance with Article 70.9 of the TRIPS Agreement by failing to establish a system for the 
grant of exclusive marketing rights. At its mee ting on 22 September 1998, the DSB adopted the Panel 
Report.  
76. WT/DS76 – Japan – Measures Affecting Agricultural Products 
Complaint by the United States. On 7 April 1997, the US requested consultations with Japan in 
respect of the latter's prohibition, under quarantine measures, of imports of certain agricultural 
products. The US alleged that Japan prohibits the importation of each variety of a product requiring 
quarantine treatment until the quarantine treatment h as been tested for that variety, even if the 
treatment has proved to be effective for other varie ties of the same product. The US alleged violations 
of Articles 2, 5 and 8 of the SPS Agreement, Article XI of GATT 1994, and Article 4 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture. In addition, the US ma de a claim for nullification and impairment of 
benefits.  
On 3 October 1997, the US requested the establishm ent of a panel. At its meeting on 16 October 
1997, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish a panel 
by the US, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 18 November 1997. The EC, Hungary and Brazil reserved their third-party rights. The report of the Panel was circulated to Members on 27 October 1998. The Panel found that Japan acted inc onsistently with Articles 2.2 and 5.6 of the SPS 
Agreement, and Annex B and, consequent ly, Article 7 of the SPS Agreement.  
On 24 November 1998, Japan notified its intenti on to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the Pa nel. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members 
on 22 February 1999. The Appellate Body upheld th e basic finding that Japan's varietal testing of 
apples, cherries, nectarines and walnuts is inconsis tent with the requirements of the SPS Agreement.   WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 165 
 
 
  The DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and th e Panel Report, as modified by the Appellate 
Body Report, on 19 March 1999.  
77. WT/DS75, WT/DS84 – Korea – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages 
Complaints by the European Communities and the Un ited States. On 4 April 1997, the EC requested 
consultations with Korea in respect of internal taxes imposed by Korea on cer tain alcoholic beverages 
pursuant to its Liquor Tax Law and Education Tax Law. The EC contended that the Korean Liquor 
Tax Law and Education Tax Law appear to be inconsistent with Korea's obligations under 
Article III:2 of GATT 1994. On 23 May 1997, the US requested consultations with Korea in respect of the same measures complained of by the EC. Th e US also alleged violations of Article III:2.  
On 10 September 1997, the EC and the US requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 
25 September 1997, the DSB deferred the establishmen t of a panel. Further to a second request to 
establish a panel by the EC and the US, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 16 October 
1997. Canada and Mexico reserved th eir third-party rights. On 26 November 1997, the EC and the US 
requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the Panel. On 5 December 1997, the 
Panel was composed. The report of the Panel was circulated to Members on 17 September 1998. The 
Panel found that:  
• soju (both diluted and distilled), is directly competitive and substitutable with the imported 
distilled alcoholic beverages that were in issu e, namely, whisky, brandy, rum, gin, vodka, 
tequila, liqueurs and ad-mixtures.  
• Korea has taxed the imported products in a dissi milar manner and that the tax differential was 
more than de minimis, and is applied so as to afford protection to domestic production.  
• The Panel therefore concluded that Korea had violated Article III:2 of GATT 1994. On 20 
October 1998, Korea notified its intention to  appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the Panel. The re port of the Appellate Body was circulated to 
Members on 18 January 1999. The Appellate Body upheld the panel's findings on all points.  
The DSB adopted the Panel and Appellate Body Reports on 17 February 1999.  
78. WT/DS70 – Canada – Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft 
Complaint by Brazil. On 10 March 1997, Brazil requ ested consultations with Canada in respect of 
certain subsidies granted by the Government of Ca nada or its provinces intended to support the export 
of civilian aircraft. The request was made pursuant to Article 4 of the Subsidies Agreement. Brazil contended that these measures are inconsistent w ith Article 3 of the Subsidies Agreement.  
At its meeting on 23 July 1998, the DSB established a panel. The US reserved its third party rights. 
On 16 October 1998, Brazil requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the Panel. 
On 22 October 1998, the Panel was composed. The re port of the panel was circulated to Members on 
14 April 1999. The Panel found that certain of Canada's measures were  inconsistent with 
Articles 3.1(a) and 3.2 of the Subsidies Agreement, but rejected Brazil's claim that EDC assistance to the Canadian regional aircraft industry constitutes export subsidies.  
On 3 May 1999, Canada notified its intention to app eal certain issues of law and legal interpretations 
developed by the Panel. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members on 2 August 1999. The Appellate Body upheld the findings of the panel.  WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 166 
 
 
  The DSB adopted the Appellate Body and Panel Reports on 20 August 1999.  
79. WT/DS69 – European Communities – Meas ures Affecting Importation of Certain 
Poultry Products 
Complaint by Brazil. On 24 February 1997, Brazil requested consultations with the EC in respect of 
the EC regime for the importation of certain poultr y products and the implementation by the EC of the 
Tariff Rate Quota for these products. Brazil contende d that the EC measures are inconsistent with 
Articles X and XXVII of GATT 1994 and Articles 1 and 3 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures. Brazil also contended that the measures nu llify or impair benefits accruing to it directly or 
indirectly under GATT 1994.  
On 12 June 1997, Brazil requested the establishment of  a panel. At its meeting on 25 June 1997, the 
DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Further to a second request to establish a panel by Brazil, 
the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 30 Ju ly 1997. Thailand and the US reserved their third-
party rights. On 11 August 1997, the Panel was composed. The report of the Panel was circulated to Members on 12 March 1998. The panel found that Brazil had not demonstrated that the EC had failed 
to implement and administer the tariff rate quota for poultry in line with its obligations under the cited 
agreements.  
On 29 April 1998, Brazil notified its intention to app eal certain issues of law and legal interpretations 
developed by the Panel. The report of the Appella te Body was circulated to Members on 13 July 
1998. The Appellate Body upheld most of the Panel's findings and conclusions, but reversed the Panel's finding that the EC had acted inconsistently with Article 5.1(b) of the Agreement on Agriculture. The Appellate Body, however, concluded that the EC had acted inconsistently with 
Article 5.5 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
At its meeting on 23 July 1998, the DSB adopted th e Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as 
modified by the Appellate Body report.  
80. WT/DS62, WT/DS67, WT/DS68 – European Co mmunities – Customs Classification of 
Certain Computer Equipment 
Complaints by the United States. These are in respect of the alleged reclassification by the European 
Communities, for tariff purposes, of certain Local Area Network (LAN) adapter equipment and personal computers with multimedia capability. The US alleged that these measures violate Article II 
of GATT 1994.  
At its meeting on 25 February 1997, the DSB esta blished a panel in respect of the complaint 
WT/DS62. Japan, Korea, India and Singapore reserved their third-party rights.  
At its meeting on 20 March 1997, the DSB established a panel in respect of the complaints WT/DS67 
and WT/DS68. In accordance with Article 9.1 of th e DSU, the DSB agreed to establish a single panel 
to examine the complaints WT/DS62, WT/DS67 and WT/DS68.  
The report of the Panel was circulated to Member s on 5 February 1998. The Panel found that the EC 
failed to accord imports of LAN equipment from the US treatment no less favourable than that 
provided for in the EC Schedule of commitments, th ereby acting inconsistently with Article II:1 of 
GATT 1994.  
On 24 March 1998, the EC notified its intenti on to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the Pa nel. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members  WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 167 
 
 
  on 5 June 1998. The Appellate Body reversed the Pa nel's conclusion that the EC tariff treatment of 
LAN equipment is inconsistent with Article II:1 of GATT 1994.  
At its meeting on 22 June 1998, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report a nd the Panel report, as 
modified by the Appellate Body report.  
81. WT/DS60 – Guatemala – Anti-Dumping Invest igation Regarding Portland Cement from 
Mexico 
Complaint by Mexico. On 15 October 1996, Mexico  requested consultations with Guatemala in 
respect of an anti-dumping investigation commenced by  Guatemala with regard to imports of portland 
cement from Mexico. Mexico alleged that this investigation was in violation of Guatemala's 
obligations under Articles 2, 3, 5 and 7.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  
On 4 February 1997, Mexico requested the establishm ent of a panel. At its meeting on 25 February 
1997, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish a panel 
by Mexico, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 20 March 1997. The US, Canada, Honduras 
and El Salvador reserved their third-party rights . On 21 April 1997, Mexico requested the Director-
General to determine the composition of the Pane l. On 1 May 1997, the Panel was composed. The 
report of the Panel was circulated to Members on 19 June 1998. The Panel found that Guatemala had 
failed to comply with the requirements of Article  5.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by initiating 
the investigation on the basis of evidence of dumping,  injury and casual link that was not "sufficient" 
as a justification for initiation.  
On 4 August 1998, Guatemala notified its intentio n to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the Pa nel. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members 
on 2 November 1998. The Appellate Body reversed th e Panel's finding that the dispute was properly 
before the Panel, on the ground that Mexico did not co mply with Article 6.2 of the DSU in its request 
for a panel since it did not identify the measure it was complaining against. Having found that the 
dispute was not properly before the Panel, the A ppellate Body could not make any conclusions on the 
findings by the Panel on the substantive issues that were also the subject of the appeal. The Appellate 
Body stressed that its decision was without prejudice to Mexico's right to pursue new dispute 
settlement proceedings on this matter.  
At the DSB meeting on 25 November 1998, the DS B adopted the Appellate Body Report and the 
Panel Report, as reversed by the Appellate Body Report.  
82. WT/DS58 – United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products 
Complaint by India, Malaysia, Pakistan and Thaila nd. On 8 October 1996, India, Malaysia, Pakistan 
and Thailand requested consultations with the US concerning a ban on importation of shrimp and 
shrimp products from these complainants imposed by the US under Section 60 9 of US Public Law 
101-162. Violations of Articles I, XI and XIII of  GATT 1994, as well nullification and impairment of 
benefits, were alleged.  
On 9 January 1997, Malaysia and Thailand requested  the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 
22 January 1997, the DSB deferred the establishment of  a panel. On 30 January 1997, Pakistan also 
requested the establishment of a panel. Further to Malaysia's, Pakistan's and Thailand's requests, the 
DSB established a panel at its meeting on 25 Fe bruary 1997. Australia, Colombia, Costa Rica, 
Ecuador, the EC, Guatemala, Hong Kong, India, Japan, Mexico, Nigeria, the Philippines, Senegal, Singapore and Sri Lanka reserved their third-party rights.  WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 168 
 
 
  On 25 February 1997, India also requested the est ablishment of a panel on the same matter. At its 
meeting on 20 March 1997, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Further to a second 
request to establish a panel by India, the DSB agreed to establish a panel at its meeting on 10 April 1997. It was also agreed to incorporate this panel with that already established in respect of the other complainants. El Salvador and Venezuela reserved their third party rights , in addition to those 
delegations who had reserved their third-party rights to the panel established at the requests of 
Malaysia, Pakistan and Thailand.  
On 15 April 1997, the Panel was composed.  
The report of the Panel was circulated to Members on 15 May 1998. The Panel found that the import ban in shrimp and shrimp products as applied by the Un ited States is inconsistent with Article XI:1 of 
GATT 1994, and cannot be justified under Article XX of GATT 1994.  
On 13 July 1998, the US notified its intention to ap peal certain issues of law and legal interpretations 
developed by the Panel. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members on 12 October 1998. The Appellate Body reversed th e Panel's finding that the US measure at issue is not within the 
scope of measures permitted under the chapeau of Article XX of GATT 1994, but concluded that the 
US measure, while qualifying for provisional justification under Article XX(g), fails to meet the 
requirements of the chapeau of Article XX.  
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and th e Panel Report, as modified by the Appellate 
Body Report, on 6 November 1998.  
83. WT/DS56 – Argentina -Measures Affecting Imports of Footwear, Textiles, Apparel and Other Items 
Complaint by the United States. On 4 October 1996, the US requested consultations with Argentina concerning the imposition of specific duties on th ese items in excess of the bound rate and other 
measures by Argentina. The US contended that th ese measures violate Articles II, VII, VIII and X of 
GATT 1994, Article 2 of the TBT Agreement, Article  1 to 8 of the Agreement on the Implementation 
of Article VII of GATT 1994, and Article 7 of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing.  
On 9 January 1997, the US requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 22 January 1997, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Furthe r to a second request to establish a panel by the 
US, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 25 February 1997. The EC and India reserved their third-party rights. On 4 April 1997, the Panel was composed. The report of the Panel was circulated on 25 November 1997. The Panel found that the minimum specific duties imposed by Argentina on textiles and apparel are inconsistent with the re quirements of Article II of GATT, and that the 
statistical tax of three per cent 
ad valorem  imposed by Argentina on imports is inconsistent with the 
requirements of Article VIII of GATT.  
On 21 January 1998, Argentina notified its intent ion to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the Pa nel. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members 
on 27 March 1998. The Appellate Body upheld, with some modification, the Panel's findings and 
conclusions.  
The Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body, were adopted by 
the DSB on 22 April 1998.   WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 169 
 
 
  84. WT/DS54, WT/DS55, WT/DS59, WT/DS64 – Indonesia – Certain Measures Affecting 
the Automobile Industry 
Complaints by the European Communities (WT/ DS54), Japan (WT/DS55 and WT/DS64), and the 
United States (WT/DS59). On 3 October 1996, the EC  requested consultations with Indonesia, on 4 
October 1996 and 29 November 1996, Japan requested consultations with Indonesia, and on 8 
October 1996, the US requested consultations with Indonesia concerning Indonesia's National Car 
Programme. The EC alleged that the exemption from customs duties and luxury taxes on imports of "national vehicles" and components thereof, and re lated measures were in violation of Indonesia's 
obligations under Articles I and III of GATT 1994, Ar ticle 2 of the TRIMs Agreement and Article 3 
of the SCM Agreement. Japan contended that these measures were in violation of Indonesia's 
obligations under Articles I:1, III:2, III:4 and X:3(a)  of GATT 1994, as well as Articles 2 and 5.4 of 
the TRIMs Agreement. The US contended that the measures were in violation of Indonesia's 
obligations under Article I and III of  GATT 1994, Article 2 of the TRIM s Agreement, Article 3, 6 and 
28 of the SCM Agreement and Articles 3, 20 and 65 of the TRIPS Agreement.  
On 17 April 1997, Japan requested the establishment of a panel with respect to complaints WT/DS55 and WT/DS64. At its meeting on 30 April 1997, the DS B deferred the establishment of a panel. On 12 
May 1997, the EC requested the establishment of a pa nel with respect to WT/DS54. At its meeting on 
23 May 1997, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Further to the EC's and Japan's second 
requests, the DSB established a panel at its mee ting on 12 June 1997. In accordance with Article 9.1 
of the DSU, the DSB decided that a single panel will examine the disputes WT/DS54, WT/DS55 and 
WT/DS64. India, Korea and the US reserved their third party rights.  
On 12 June 1997, the US requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 25 June 1997, the 
DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Further to a second request to establish a panel by the US, 
the DSB established a Panel at its meeting on 30 July 1997. In accordance with Article 9.1 of the DSU, the DSB decided that a single panel will ex amine this dispute together with WT/DS54, 
WT/DS55 and WT/DS64. India and Korea reserved their third party rights.  
On 25 July 1997, the EC and Japan requested the Director-General to determine the composition of 
the Panel. On 29 July 1997, the Panel was composed.  
The report of the Panel was circulated to Memb ers on 2 July 1998. The Panel found that Indonesia 
was in violation of Articles I and II:2 of GATT 1994, Article 2 of the TRIMs Agreement, Article 5(c) 
of the SCM Agreement, but was not in violation of Article 28.2 of the SCM Agreement. The Panel 
however, found that the complainants had not de monstrated that Indonesia was in violation of 
Articles 3 and 65.5 of the TRIPS Agreement. At its meeting on 23 July 1998, the DSB adopted the Panel report.  
85. WT/DS50 – India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical Products 
Complaint by the United States. On 2 July 1996 , the US requested consultations with India 
concerning the alleged absence of patent protecti on for pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical 
products in India. Violations of the TRIPS Ag reement Articles 27, 65 and 70 are claimed.  
The DSB established a panel at its meeting on 20 November 1996. The EC reserved their third party 
rights. On 29 January 1997, the Panel was compos ed. The report of the Panel was circulated on 5 
September 1997. The Panel found that India has not complied with its obligations under Article 70.8(a) or Article 63(1) and (2) of the TRIPS Agreement by failing to establish a mechanism 
that adequately preserves novelty and priority in respect of applications for product patents for WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 170 
 
 
  pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical inventions, and was also not in compliance with Article 70.9 
of the TRIPS Agreement by failing to establish a system  for the grant of exclusive marketing rights.  
On 15 October 1997, India notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the Pa nel. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members 
on 19 December 1997. The Appellate Body upheld, with modifications, the Panel's findings on 
Articles 70.8 and 70.9, but ruled that Article 63(1) was not within the Panel's terms of reference.  
The Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body, were adopted by 
the DSB on 16 January 1998.  
86. WT/DS48 – European Communities – Measures Affecting Livestock and Meat 
(Hormones) 
Complaint by Canada. On 28 June 1996, Canada re quested consultations with the EC regarding the 
importation of livestock and meat from livestock that  have been treated with certain substances 
having a hormonal action under GATT Article XXII and the corresponding provisions in the SPS, TBT and Agriculture Agreements. Violations SPS Ar ticles 2, 3 and 5; GATT Article III or XI; TBT 
Article 2; and Agriculture Article 4 are alleged. The Canadian claim was essentially the same as the 
US claim (WT/DS26), for which a panel was established earlier.  
On 16 September 1996, Canada requested the esta blishment of a panel. At its meeting on 27 
September 1996, the DSB deferred the establishmen t of a panel. Further to a second request to 
establish a panel by Canada, the DSB established a pa nel at its meeting on 16 October 1996. On 4 
November 1996, the Panel was composed. The report of the Panel was circulated to Members on 18 August 1997. The Panel found that the EC ban on imports of meat and meat products from cattle 
treated with any of six specific hormones for gr owth promotion purposes was inconsistent with 
Articles 3.1, 5.1 and 5.5 of the SPS Agreement.  
On 24 September 1997, the EC notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed by the Panel. The Appellate Body examined this appeal with that of 
WT/DS26. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members on 16 January 1998. The 
Appellate Body upheld the Panel's finding that the EC import prohibition was inconsistent with 
Articles 3.3 and 5.1 of the SPS Agreement, but reversed the Panel's finding that the EC import prohibition was inconsistent with Articles 3.1 and 5.5 of the SPS Agreement. On the general and 
procedural issues, the Appellate Body upheld most of the findings and conclusions of the Panel, 
except with respect to the burden of proof in proceedings under the SPS Agreement.  
The Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body, were adopted by 
the DSB on 13 February 1998.  
87. WT/DS46 – Brazil – Export Financing Programme for Aircraft 
Complaint by Canada. On 19 J une 1996, Canada requested cons ultations with Brazil based on 
Article 4 of the Subsidies Agreement, which provi des for special procedures for export subsidies. 
Canada claimed that export subs idies granted under the Brazilian Programa de Financiamento às  
Exportações (PROEX),  to foreign purchasers of Brazil's Embraer aircraft are inconsistent with the 
Subsidies Agreement Articles 3, 27.4 and 27.5.  
Canada requested the establishment of a panel on 16 September 1996, a lleging violations of both the 
Subsidies Agreement and GATT 1994. The DSB considered this request at its meeting on 27 September 1996. Due to Brazil's objection to the estab lishment of a panel, Canada agreed to modify  WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 171 
 
 
  its request, limiting the scope of the request to th e Subsidies Agreement. The modified request was 
submitted by Canada on 3 October 1996 but was subsequently withdr awn prior to a DSB meeting at 
which it was to be considered.  
On 10 July 1998, Canada again requested the estab lishment of a panel. At its meeting on 23 July 
1998, the DSB established a Panel. The EC and the US reserved their third-party rights. On 16 
October 1998, Canada requested the Director-General  to determine the composition of the Panel. On 
22 October 1998, the Panel was composed. The report of the Panel was circulated to Members on 14 
April 1999. The Panel found that Brazil's measures we re inconsistent with Articles 3.1(a) and 27.4 of 
the Subsidies Agreement.  
On 3 May 1999, Brazil notified its intention to appe al certain issues of law and legal interpretations 
developed by the Panel. The report of the Appella te Body was circulated to Members on 2 August 
1999. The Appellate Body upheld all the findings of the panel, but reversed and modified the panel's 
interpretation of the "material advantage" clause in item (k) of the Illustrative List of Export Subsidies 
in Annex I of the SCM Agreement.  
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and th e Panel Report, as modified by the Appellate 
Body Report, on 20 August 1999.  
88. WT/DS44 – Japan – Measures Affecting Consumer Photographic Film and Paper 
Complaint by the United States. On 13 June 1996 , the United States requested consultations with 
Japan concerning Japan's laws, regulations and requ irements affecting the distribution, offering for 
sale and internal sale of imported consumer photogr aphic film and paper. The US alleged that: 
• the Japanese Government treated imported film  and paper less favourably through these 
measures, in violation of GATT Articles III and X.  
• these measures nullify or impair benefits accr uing to the US (a non-violation claim).  
On 20 September 1996, the US requested the establis hment of a panel. At its meeting on 3 October 
1996, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish a panel 
by the US, the DSB established a panel at its me eting on 16 October 1996. The EC and Mexico 
reserved their third party rights. On 12 December 1996, the US requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the Panel. On 17 D ecember 1996, the Panel was composed. The report 
of the Panel was circulated to Member s on 31 March 1998. The Panel found: 
• that the US had not demonstrated that the Japanese 'measures' cited by the US nullified or impaired, either individually or collectively, benefits accruing to the US within the meaning 
of GATT Article XXIII:1(b);  
• that the US had not demonstrated that the Jap anese distribution 'measures' cited by the US 
accord less favourable treatment to imported photographic film and paper within the meaning of GATT Article III:4; and  
• that the US did not demonstrate that Japan fa iled to publish administrative rulings of general 
application in violation of GATT Article X:1.  
The Panel report was adopted by the DSB on 22 April 1998.  WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 172 
 
 
  89. WT/DS34 – Turkey – Restrictions on Imports of Textile and Clothing Products 
Complaint by India. On 21 March 1996, India re quested consultations with Turkey concerning 
Turkey's imposition of quantitative restrictions on im ports of a broad range of textile and clothing 
products. India claimed that those measures are inconsistent with Articles XI and XIII of GATT 1994, 
as well as ATC Article 2. Earlier, India had requested to be joined in the co nsultations between Hong 
Kong and Turkey on the same subject matter (WT/DS29).  
On 2 February 1998, India requested the establishm ent of a panel. At its meeting on 13 February 
1998, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish a panel 
by India, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 13 March 1998. Japan, the Philippines, 
Thailand, the US and Hong Kong, China reserved thei r third-party rights. On 11 June 1998, the Panel 
was composed. The report of the Panel was circul ated to Members on 31 May 1999. The Panel found 
that Turkey's measures are inconsistent with Ar ticles XI and XIII of GA TT 1994, and consequently 
inconsistent also with Article 2.4 of the ATC. The Panel also rejected Turkey's assertion that its measures are justified by Article XXIV of GATT 1994.  
On 26 July 1999, Turkey notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations 
developed by the Panel. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated on 21 October 1999. The 
Appellate Body upheld the Panel's conclusion that Article XXIV of GATT 1994 does not allow 
Turkey to adopt, upon the formation of a customs union with the EC, quantitative restrictions which 
were found to be inconsistent with Articles XI and XIII of GATT 1994 and Article 2.4 of the ATC. 
However, the Appellate Body conc luded that the Panel erred in its legal reasoning in interpreting 
Article XXIV of GATT 1994.  
At its meeting on 19 November 1999, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel 
report, as modified by the Appellate Body report.  
90. WT/DS33 – United States – Measures Affecting Imports of Woven Wool Shirts and Blouses 
Complaint by India. On 30 December 1994, India requested consultations with the United States 
concerning the transitional safeguard measure imposed  by the United States. India claimed that the 
safeguard measure is inconsistent with  Articles 2, 6 and 8 of the ATC.  
On 14 March 1996, India requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 27 March 1996, 
the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Further to a second request to establish a panel by India, the DSB meeting established a panel at its meeting on 17 April 1996. Canada, the EC, Norway, 
Pakistan and Turkey reserved their third party rights. On 24 June 1996, the Panel was composed. The 
report of the Panel was circulated to Members on 6 January 1997. The Panel found that the safeguard 
measure imposed by the United States violated the provisions of the ATC.  
On 24 February 1997, India notified its intenti on to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the Pa nel. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members 
on 25 April 1997. The Appellate Body upheld the Panel's decisions on those issues of law and legal interpretations that were appealed against.  
The Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as upheld by the Appellate Body, were adopted by 
the DSB on 23 May 1997.   WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 173 
 
 
  91. WT/DS31 – Canada – Certain Measures Concerning Periodicals 
Complaint by the United States. On 11 March 1996, the United States requested consultations with 
Canada concerning certain measures prohibiting or r estricting the importation into Canada of certain 
periodicals. The US claimed that the measures ar e in contravention of GATT Article XI. The US 
further alleged that the tax treatment of so-called "split-run" periodicals and the application of 
favourable postage rates to certain Canadian peri odicals are inconsistent with GATT Article III.  
On 24 May 1996, the US requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 6 June 1996, the 
DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Further to a second request to establish a panel by the US, 
the DSB established a panel on 19 June 1996. On 25 July 1996, the Panel was composed. The report 
of the Panel was circulated to Members on 14 Ma rch 1997. The Panel found the measures applied by 
Canada to be in violation of GATT rules.  
On 29 April 1997, Canada notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the Pa nel. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members 
on 30 June 1997. The Appellate Body  upheld the Panel's findings and conclusions on the applicability 
of GATT 1994 to Part V.1 of Canada's Excise Tax Ac t, but reversed the Panel's finding that Part V.1 
of the Excise Act is inconsistent with the first sentence of Article III:2 of GATT 1994. The Appellate 
Body further concluded that Part V.1 of the Excise Act is inconsistent with the second sentence of Article III:2 of GATT 1994. The Appellate Body also  reversed the Panel's conclusion that Canada's 
"funded" postal rate scheme is justifie d by Article III:8(b) of GATT 1994. 
 At its meeting on 30 July 1997, the DSB adopted th e Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as 
modified by the Appellate Body.  
92. WT/DS27 – European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas 
Complaints by Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico  and the United States. The complainants in 
this case other than Ecuador had requested consu ltations with the EC on the same issue on 28 
September 1995 (WT/DS16). After Ecuador's accessi on to the WTO, the current complainants again 
requested consultations with the EC on 5 February  1996. The complainants alleged that the EC's 
regime for importation, sale and distribution of bana nas is inconsistent with GATT Articles I, II, III, 
X, XI and XIII as well as provisions of the Import Licensing Agreement, the Agreement on 
Agriculture, the TRIMs Agreement and the GATS.  
On 11 April 1996, the five complainants requested th e establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 24 
April 1996, the DSB deferred the establishment of a pa nel. Further to a second request by the five 
complainants, a panel was established at the DSB meeting on 8 May 1996. On 29 May 1996, the five complainants requested the Director-General to de termine the composition of the Panel. On 7 June 
1996, the Panel was composed. The report of the Pa nel was circulated to Members on 22 May 1997. 
The Panel found that the EC's ba nana import regime, and the licen sing procedures for the importation 
of bananas in this regime, are inconsistent with  the GATT. The Panel further found that the Lomé 
waiver waives the inconsistency with GATT Articl e XIII, but not inconsistencies arising from the 
licensing system.  
On 11 June 1997, the European Communities notified its  intention to appeal certain issues of law and 
legal interpretations developed by the Panel. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to 
Members on 9 September 1997. The Appellate Body mo stly upheld the Panel's findings, but reversed 
the Panel's findings that the inconsistency with GA TT Article XIII is waived by the Lomé waiver, and WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 174 
 
 
  that certain aspects of the licensing regime violated Article X of GATT and the Import Licensing 
Agreement.  
At its meeting on 25 September 1997, the Appellate  Body report and the Panel report, as modified by 
the Appellate Body, were adopted by the DSB.  
93. WT/DS26 – European Communities – Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products 
(Hormones) 
Complaint by the United States. On 26 January 1996 , the United States requested consultations with 
the European Communities claimi ng that measures taken by the EC under the Council Directive 
Prohibiting the Use in Livestock Farming of Certai n Substances Having a Hormonal Action restrict or 
prohibit imports of meat and meat products from th e United States, and are apparently inconsistent 
with GATT Articles III or XI, SPS Agreement Articl es 2, 3 and 5, TBT Agreement Article 2 and the 
Agreement on Agriculture Article 4.  
On 25 April 1996, the US requested the establishment of a panel. At its meetings on 8 May 1996, the 
DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Further to a second request to establish a panel by the US, 
a panel was established at the DSB meeting on 20 May 1996. On 2 July 1996, the Panel was 
composed. The report of the Panel was circulated to Members on 18 August 1997. The Panel found that the EC ban on imports of meat and meat products from cattle treated with any of six specific hormones for growth promotion purposes was inconsiste nt with Articles 3.1, 5.1 and 5.5 of the SPS 
Agreement.  
On 24 September 1997, the EC notified its intenti on to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the Panel. The Appellate Body examined this appeal with that of 
WT/DS48. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members on 16 January 1998. The 
Appellate Body upheld the Panel's finding that the EC import prohibition was inconsistent with 
Articles 3.3 and 5.1 of the SPS Agreement, but reversed the Panel's finding that the EC import prohibition was inconsistent with Articles 3.1 and 5.5 of the SPS Agreement. On the general and 
procedural issues, the Appellate Body upheld most of the findings and conclusions of the Panel, 
except with respect to the burden of proof in proceedings under the SPS Agreement.  
The Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body, were adopted by 
the DSB on 13 February 1998.  
94. WT/DS24 – United States – Restrictions on Imports of Cotton and Man-made Fibre Underwear 
Complaint by Costa Rica. On 22 December 1995, Costa Rica requested consultations with the United 
States concerning US restrictions on textile impor ts from Costa Rica. Costa Rica alleged that these 
restrictions were in violation of the ATC agreement.  
Further to Costa Rica's request, the DSB established a panel at it s meeting on 5 March 1996. India 
reserved its third-party rights. On  4 April 1996, the Panel was com posed. The report of the panel was 
circulated to members on 8 November 1996. The Pane l found that the US restraints were not valid. 
On 11 November 1996, Costa Rica notified its deci sion to appeal against one aspect of the Panel 
report. The report of the Appellate Body was ci rculated to Members on 10 February 1997. The 
Appellate Body upheld the appeal by Costa Rica on that particular point.   WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 175 
 
 
  The Appellate Body report and the Panel report as modified by the Appellate Body report, were 
adopted by the DSB on 25 February 1997.  
95. WT/DS22 – Brazil – Measures Affecting Desiccated Coconut 
Complaint by the Philippines. On 27 November 1995,  the Philippines requested consultations with 
Brazil in respect of a countervailing duty imposed by Brazil on the Philippine's exports of desiccated 
coconut. The Philippines claimed that this duty was inconsistent with WTO and GATT rules.  
On 5 February 1996, the Philippines requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 21 
February 1996, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Further to a second request to establish 
a panel by the Philippines, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 5 March 1996. Canada, the 
EC, Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and the US reserved their third-party rights. On 16 April 1996, the 
Panel was composed. The report was circulated to Members on 17 October 1996. The report of the 
Panel concluded that the provisions of the agreements  relied on by the claimant were inapplicable to 
the dispute.  
On 16 December 1996, the Philippines notified its decisi on to appeal against certain issues of law and 
legal interpretations developed by  the panel. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to 
Members on 21 February 1997. The Appellate Body uphe ld the findings and legal interpretations of 
the Panel.  
The Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body report, were 
adopted by the DSB on 20 March 1997.  
96. WT/DS18 – Australia – Measures Affecting the Importation of Salmon 
Complaint by Canada. On 5 October 1995, Canada requested consultati ons with Australia in respect 
of Australia's prohibition of imports of salmon fro m Canada based on a quarantine regulation. Canada 
alleged that the prohibition is inconsistent with GATT Articles XI and XIII, and also inconsistent with the SPS Agreement.  
On 7 march 1997, Canada requested the establishmen t of a panel. At its meeting on 20 March 1997, 
the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Further to a second request to establish a panel by 
Canada, the DSB established a pane l at its meeting on 10 April 1997. The EC, India, Norway and the 
US reserved their third-party rights. On 28 May 1997, the Panel was composed. The report of the 
Panel was circulated to Members on 12 June 19 98. The Panel found that Australia's measures 
complained against were inconsistent with Articles 2.2, 2.3, 5.1, 5.5, and 5.6 of the SPS Agreement, 
and also nullified or impaired benefits accruing to Canada under the SPS Agreement.  
On 22 July 1998, Australia notified its intent ion to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the Pa nel. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members 
on 20 October 1998. The Appellate Body reversed the Panel's reasoning with respect to Articles 5.1 and 2.2 of the SPS Agreement but nevertheless found that:  
• Australia had acted inconsistently with Articles 5.1 and 2.2 of the SPS Agreement;  
• broadened the Panel's finding that Australia had acted inconsistently with Articles 5.5 and 2.3 
of the SPS Agreement;  WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 176 
 
 
  • reversed the Panel's finding that Australia had act ed inconsistently with Article 5.6 of the SPS 
Agreement but was unable to come to a conclu sion whether or not Australia's measure was 
consistent with Article 5.6 due to insu fficient factual findings by the Panel.  
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and th e Panel Report, as modified by the Appellate 
Body Report, on 6 November 1998.  
97. WT/DS8, WT/DS10, WT/DS11 – Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages 
Complaints by the European Communities, Cana da and the United States. The EC requested 
consultations on 21 June 1995, and Ca nada and the US on 7 July 1995. The complainants claimed that 
spirits exported to Japan were discriminated agai nst under the Japanese liquor tax system which, in 
their view, levies a substantially lower tax on "shoc hu" than on whisky, cognac and white spirits.  
A joint panel was established at the DSB mee ting on 27 September 1995. On 30 October 1995, the 
Panel was composed. The report of the panel, whic h found the Japanese tax system to be inconsistent 
with GATT Article III:2, was circulated to Members on 11 July 1996.  
On 8 August 1996 Japan filed an appeal. The report of  the Appellate Body was circulated to Members 
on 4 October 1996. The Appellate Body's Report a ffirmed the Panel's conclusion that the Japanese 
Liquor Tax Law is inconsistent with GATT Article  III:2, but pointed out several areas where the 
Panel had erred in its legal reas oning. The Appellate Report, together with the panel report as 
modified by the Appellate Report, was adopted on 1 November 1996.  
98. WT/DS2, WT/DS4 – United States – Standa rds for Reformulated and Conventional 
Gasoline 
Complaints by Venezuela and Brazil. Venezuel a requested consultations  on 24 January 1995 and 
Brazil on 10 April 1995. Complainants alleged that a US gasoline regulation discriminated against 
complainants' gasoline in violation of GATT Artic les I and III and Article 2 of the Agreement on 
Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT).  
Further to Venezuela's request, the DSB establishe d a Panel at its meeting on 10 April 1995. On 26 
April 1995 the Panel was composed. Further to Brazil's request, the DSB esta blished a Panel at its 
meeting on 19 June 1995. On 31 Ma y 1995, in accordance with Article 9 of the DSU, it was agreed 
that a single panel would consider the complaints of Venezuela and Brazil. The report of the panel 
was circulated to Members on 29 January 1996. The report of the panel found the regulation to be 
inconsistent with GATT Article III:4 and not to benefit from an Article XX exception.  
The US appealed on 21 February 1996. On 22 April, the Appellate Body issued its report, modifying 
the panel report on the interpretation of GATT Artic le XX(g), but concluding that Article XX(g) was 
not applicable in this case. The Appellate Report, together with the panel report as modified by the 
Appellate Report, was adopted by the DSB on 20 May 1996.  
B. APPELLATE BODY AND PANEL COMPLIANCE REPORTS (ARTICLE  21.5)  ADOPTED  
1. WT/DS277 – United States – Investigation of the International Trade Commission in Softwood Lumber from Canada 
Considering that the measures allegedly taken by  the United States to comply with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings were  inconsistent with US oblig ations under relevant WTO  WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 177 
 
 
  Agreements, on 14 February 2005 Canada requested the DSB of the establishment of a panel under 
Article 21.5 of the DSU.  
On 23 February 2005, Canada and the United States sent to the DSB the understanding between the 
parties regarding procedures under Articles 21 and 22  of the DSU, which provides that Article 22.6 
arbitration be suspended until adoption by the DSB of the recommendations and rulings in the 
Article 21.5 compliance proceedings.  
At its meeting of 25 February 2005 the DSB deci ded to refer the matter raised by Canada to the 
original panel. China and the European Communitie s reserved their third party rights. On 2 March 
2005, the Panel was composed.  
On 25 May 2005, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that it would not be possible for the 
Panel to complete its work in 90 days in light of scheduling conflicts, and that the Panel expected to 
complete its work in September 2005. 
On 15 November 2005, the Article 21.5 Panel circulat ed its Report to Members.  In its Report, the 
Panel found that the determination of the US IT C implementing the Panel and DSB recommendations 
in the original dispute is not inconsistent with the United States' obligations under the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the SCM Agreement.   
On 13 January 2006, Canada notified its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of 
law covered in the Article 21.5 panel report and certain  legal interpretations developed by the Panel.  
On 10 March 2006, the Chairman of the Appellate Body informed the DSB that the Appellate Body 
would not be able to circulate its Report within  the 60-day period due to the time required for 
completion and translation of the Report, and that it estimated it would be circulated to WTO 
Members no later than 13 April 2006. 
On 13 April 2006, the Appellate Body circulated its report to Members.  The Appellate Body clarified 
the standard of review to be followed by panels in  reviewing threat of injury determinations.  The 
Appellate Body found that the Panel had acted in consistently with Article 11 of the DSU because it 
articulated and applied an improper standard of revi ew in its assessment of the USITC's Section 129 
determination.  Consequently, the Appellate Body  reversed the Panel's findings that the USITC's 
determination is not inconsistent with the obligations of the United States under Articles 3.5 or 3.7 of 
the Anti-Dumping Agreement  and Articles 15.5 and 15.7 of the SCM Agreement , and also reversed the 
Panel's finding that the United States had implemen ted the recommendations and rulings of the DSB 
in the original dispute.  
However, the Appellate Body was unable to complete the analysis and determine whether the USITC's Section 129 determination is  consistent or inconsistent with  the United States' obligations 
under Articles 3.5 and 3.7 of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement  and Articles 15.5 and 15.7 of the SCM 
Agreement because of the absence of pertinent factual findings by the Panel and undisputed facts on 
the Panel record. 
On 9 May 2006, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body  report and the Panel report, as reversed by the 
Appellate Body report. 
2. WT/DS264 – United States – Final Dumping Determination on Softwood Lumber from 
Canada 
Complaint by Canada. Considering that the measur es allegedly taken by the United States to comply 
with the DSB's recommendations and rulings were in consistent with US ob ligations under relevant WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 178 
 
 
  WTO Agreements, on 19 May 2005 Canada requested  the establishment of a panel under Article 21.5 
of the DSU.  
On 27 May 2005, the parties informed the DSB of an understanding rega rding procedures under 
Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU. 
At its meeting of 1 June 2005 the DSB decided to re fer the matter raised by Canada to the original 
panel. China, India, Japan and the European Communities reserved their third party rights.  
On 26 August 2005, due to the resignation of the Chairman of the Article 21.5 Panel, the Director-
General appointed a new Chairman to the Panel. On 16 September 2005, the Chairman of the Panel 
informed the DSB that it would not be possible for th e Panel to complete its work in 90 days in light 
of the withdrawal of the Chairman of the Panel a nd consequent need to appoint a new Chairman, and 
scheduling conflicts, and that the Panel expected  to complete its work in February 2006. 
On 3 April 2006, the Article 21.5 Panel circulated it s report to Members.  This proceeding concerned 
the implementation by the United States of part of  the DSB recommendations and rulings relating to 
the finding that the use of "zeroing" by the USDOC in the underlying investigation was inconsistent with Article 2.4.2 of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement  in the context of a comparison of "a weighted 
average normal value with a weighted average of  all comparable export transactions". The DSB 
issued its recommendations and rulings after the Ap pellate Body upheld the relevant finding of the 
original panel.  
In order to implement the DSB recommendations and rulings, the USDOC calculated new rates for 
the exporters subject to the anti-dumping duty order, based on a comparison of normal value and export prices on a transaction-to-transaction basis.  The USDOC used zeroing in its transaction-to-
transaction methodology. 
Canada claimed that the USDOC's continued us e of zeroing under the transaction-to-transaction 
comparison methodology is inconsistent with Articles 2.4.2 and 2.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement .  
The Article 21.5 Panel rejected Canada's claims.  On 17 May 2006, Canada notified its decision to 
appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of la w and certain legal interpretations covered in the 
panel report.  On 14 July 2006, the Appellate Body informed the DSB that due to the time required for completion and translation of the report, the Appellate  Body would not be able to circulate its report 
within the 60-day period, and that it estimated that the Appellate Body report would be circulated to 
WTO Members no later than 15 August 2006. 
On 15 August 2006, the Appellate Body report was ci rculated to Members.  The Appellate Body 
reversed the Panel's findings and found, instead, that the use of zeroing is not permitted under the 
transaction-to-transaction methodology set out in Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  
because "the 'margins of dumping' established under this methodology are the results of the 
aggregation of the transaction-specific comparisons  of export prices and normal value", and "in 
aggregating these results, an investigating authority must consider the results of all of the comparisons and may not disregard the results of comparisons in which export prices are above normal value". 
In addition, the Appellate Body found that th e use of zeroing under the transaction-to-transaction 
comparison methodology in the Section 129 Determinati on is inconsistent with the "fair comparison" 
requirement in Article 2.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement  because it distorts the price of certain 
export transactions, which are not considered at their real value, and artificially inflates the magnitude 
of dumping, resulting in higher margins of dumpi ng and making a positive determination of dumping 
more likely.  WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 179 
 
 
  The Appellate Body reversed the Panel's conclusi on that the United States had implemented the DSB 
recommendations and rulings and recommended that th e DSB request the United States to bring its 
measure into conformity with its obligations under the Anti-Dumping Agreement .  At its meeting on 
1 September 2006, the DSB adopted the Appellate Bo dy report and the Panel report, as reversed by 
the Appellate Body report. 
3. WT/DS257 – United States – Final Countervailing Duty Determination with respect to 
certain Softwood Lumber from Canada 
Considering that the measures allegedly taken by  the United States to comply with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings were  inconsistent with US oblig ations under relevant WTO 
Agreements, on 30 December 2004 Canada requested  the DSB of the establishment of a panel under 
Article 21.5 of the DSU.  
Canada considers that the measur es allegedly taken by the United States to comply with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings were inconsistent with US obligations under Articles 10 and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement and Article VI:3 of the GATT 1994.  
On 14 January 2005, Canada and the United Stat es sent to the DSB the understanding between the 
parties regarding procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU, which provides that Article 22.6 
arbitration be suspended until adoption by the DSB of the recommendations and rulings in the 
Article 21.5 compliance proceedings.  
At its meeting of 14 January 2005 the DSB decided to refer the matter raised by Canada to the 
original panel. China and the European Co mmunities reserved their third party rights.  
On 1 August 2005, the Article 21.5 Panel circulated its report to Members. The Panel found that the 
United States remains in violation of Article 10 a nd 32.1 of the SCM Agreement, and Article VI:3 of 
the GATT 1994.  On 6 September 2005, the United States notified its decision to appeal to the 
Appellate Body certain issues of law covered in the Panel report and certain  legal interpretations 
developed by the Panel in this dispute.  
On 2 November 2005, the Appellate Body inform ed the DSB that due to the time required for 
completion and translation of the Report, the Appellate Body would not be able to circulate its Report within the 60-day period, and that it estimated that the Appellate Body report would be circulated to 
WTO Members no later than 5 December 2005. 
On 5 December 2005, the Appellate Body circulated  its Report to Members.  In its Report, the 
Appellate Body, referring to previous cases, confir med that the question of what measures may be 
examined by a panel acting pursuant to Article 21.5 is a question to be answered by panels and the 
Appellate Body, rather than by the parties to the dispute.  Although a Member's declaration that a 
specific measure is the one that it h as "taken to comply" will always be relevant to this question, such 
a declaration is not determinative.  Some measure s with a very close relationship to the declared 
"measure taken to comply", and to the recommend ations and rulings of the DSB in the original 
proceedings, may also be susceptible to review by  a panel acting under Article 21.5.  In order to 
determine whether a specific measure does fall within its jurisdiction, a panel will need to scrutinize the relationships between relevant measures and to  examine the timing, nature and effects of these 
measures.  The Appellate Body found that this was precisely the approach taken by the Panel. 
The Appellate Body highlighted that the Panel had not found that all of the First Assessment Review 
fell within its jurisdiction, but only the pass-through analysis  employed by USDOC in that 
proceeding.  The Appellate Body found that the Pa nel had correctly relied upon multiple and specific WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 180 
 
 
  links between the pass-through analysis in the First Assessment Review, the Section 129 
Determination and the final count ervailing duty determination that was at issue in the original 
proceedings.  All three proceedings involved the issue of pass-through, and covered imports of 
softwood lumber from Canada.  The publication dates of the First Assessment Review and the Section 129 Determination coincided very closely in time (within four days of each other).  In addition, the 
First Assessment Review directly affected the S ection 129 Determination because the cash deposit 
rate resulting from the Section 129 Determination (which reflected a small reduction due to the pass-
through analysis contained therein) was replaced af ter 10 days by the cash deposit rate resulting from 
the First Assessment Review (which reflected no reduction from the pass-through analysis contained 
therein). 
For these reasons, the Appellate Body upheld the Pane l's finding that the First Assessment Review fell 
within the scope of these Article 21.5 proceedings, insofar as the pass-through analysis is concerned. 
As the United States did not request the Appellate Body to examine the s ubstance of the findings 
made by the Panel with respect to the pass-thr ough analysis in the First Assessment Review, the 
Appellate Body declined to disturb the Panel's findi ngs that this analysis was inconsistent with the 
United States' obligations under the SCM Agreement and the GATT 1994.  Instead, the Appellate Body simply found that the Panel had acted within  the scope of its jurisdiction in making such 
findings. 
At its meeting of 20 December 2005, the DSB adop ted the Article 21.5 Appellate Body report and 
Panel report, as upheld by the Appellate Body report. 
4. WT/DS245 – Japan – Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples 
On 30 June 2004, Japan and the United States sent to the DSB the confirmed procedures between the 
parties under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU.  
Considering that Japan had failed to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings before the 
expiration of the reasonable period of time, on 19 Ju ly 2004 the United States requested the DSB of 
the establishment of a panel under Article 21.5 of the DSU.  
The United States considers that Japan's phytosanitary measures on imported US apples are inconsistent with its obliga tions under the SPS Agreement, the GATT 1994, and the Agreement on 
Agriculture. The provisions of these agreements with which Japan's measures appear to be 
inconsistent include:  
• Articles 2.2, 2.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.5, 5.6, 6.1 and 6.2 of the Agreement on the Application of 
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures ;  
• Article XI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade  1994; and  
• Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture .  
At its meeting on 30 July 2004 the DSB decided to re fer the matter raised by the United States to the 
original panel. Australia, Brazil, China, the Eu ropean Communities, New Zealand and Chinese Taipei 
reserved their third party rights.  
On 29 October 2004, the Panel under DSU Article 21.5 in formed the DSB that due in particular to the 
need to consult scientific experts the Panel was not ab le to issue its report within 90 days, and that the  WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 181 
 
 
  Panel expected to circulate its final report to Members during the second half of the month of May 
2005. 
On 23 June 2005, the Article 21.5 Panel circulated its Report to Members. The Panel report found that 
Japan's phytosanitary measure imposed on imports of apples from the United States is contrary to 
Articles 2.2 and 5.1 of the SPS Agreement and if the United States only exports mature, symptomless 
apples, the alternative measure proposed by the United States meets the requirement of Article 5.6 of 
the SPS Agreement. At the DSB meeting on 30 July 2005, the Panel Report was adopted.  
5. WT/DS212 – United States – Countervailing Measures Concerning Certain Products from the European Communities 
On 17 March 2004, the EC, considering that the me asures taken by the US to comply with its WTO 
obligations were unsatisfactory, requested the US to  enter into consultations under Articles 4 and 21.5 
of the DSU and Article 30 of the SCM Agreement.  On 16 September 2004, pursuant to Articles 6 and 
21.5 of the DSU, Article 30 of the SCM Agre ement and Article XXIII of GATT 1994, the EC 
requested that the panel be established, as it disagree s with the US as to the existence or consistency 
with a covered agreement of measures taken to co mply with the recommendations and rulings of the 
DSB.  
In particular, the EC claims and requests the Panel to find the following:  
1. That in the sunset review Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from 
France  (C 427 810) (Case No. 9), the United States failed to properly examine the existence, 
continuation or likelihood of recurrence of subsid ization. In particular, with regard to the 
privatization concerned, it improperly analysed  whether the price for employees and retirees' 
shares constituted a subsidy or that it led to an y continuation of a count ervailable subsidy. 
This is inconsistent with Articles 10, 14, 19.4, 21.1and 21.3 of the SCM Agreement  and 
Article VI: 3 of GATT 1994.  
2. That in the following sunset reviews:  
• Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from United Kingdom  (C–412–815) (Case No. 8);  
• Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Spain  (C–469–804) (Case No. 11),  
The EC considers that the United States failed to  properly determine whether, in these cases, there 
was continuation or recurrence of subsidization and injury, because it did not examine the nature of the privatizations in question and their impact on the continuation of the alleged subsidization. This is 
inconsistent with Articles 10, 14, 19.4, 21.1, and 21.3 of the SCM Agreement and Article VI:3 of 
GATT 1994, according to the EC.  
At its meeting of 27 September 2004, the DSB established the panel. Brazil, Korea and China 
reserved their rights as third parties. On 8 October 2004, the Panel was composed.  
On 4 January 2005, the Chairman of the Panel inform ed the DSB that the Panel expected to complete 
its work in May 2005.  
On 17 August 2005, the Panel Report was circulated to Members. In the Panel Report, the European 
Communities prevailed only on its claims regarding (i) the US failu re to examine the privatizations of 
BS plc (UK) and Aceralia (Spain); and (ii) the treatment of new evidence in the UK Section 129 
proceedings.  All other EC claims were either dismissed or rejected.   WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 182 
 
 
  On 27 September 2005, the Panel Report was adopted by the DSB.  
6. WT/DS141 – European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Cotton-type 
Bed Linen from India 
On 8 March 2002, India sought recourse to Article 21. 5 of the DSU (request for consultations), stating 
that there was disagreement as to the existence or consistency with a covered agreement of measures 
taken to comply with the recommendations and rulings. On 4 April 2002, India requested the 
establishment of a compliance panel. In particular, India claimed that the EC had violated Articles 2, 3, 5.7, 6, 9, 12 and 15 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. 
Accordingly, India requested the Panel to conclude that:  
• The re-determination, as amended, and the subsequent actions as identified above, are 
inconsistent with the above provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and GATT 1994; and  
• By failing to withdraw the measures found to be inconsistent with the Anti-Dumping Agreement and to bring its measures into conf ormity with its obligations under the Anti-
Dumping Agreement and GATT 1994, the EC has failed to comply with the DSB recommendations and rulings in this dispute.  
At the DSB meeting on 17 April 2002, India informed the DSB that pursuant to an understanding reached between the EC and India, it was requestin g the withdrawal of the item from the agenda in 
accordance with Rule 6 of the Rules of Procedur e for WTO meetings. The DSB agreed to India's 
request.  
On 7 May 2002, India again requested the establishm ent of a compliance panel. At the DSB meeting 
on 22 May 2002, it was agreed that, if possible, the matter would be referred to the original panel. 
Japan and the United States reserved their third party rights to participate in the proceedings. On 27 
May 2002, Korea reserved its third party right s. On 25 June 2002, the compliance panel was 
composed. On 19 August 2002, the Chairman of th e Panel informed the DSB that it expected to 
complete its work in November 2002. On 29 Novemb er 2002, the report was circulated to Members. 
The Panel concluded that the EC's definitive an ti-dumping measure on imports of bed linen from 
India, EC Regulation 1644/2001, is not inconsis tent with the AD Agreement or the DSU and that, 
therefore, the EC had implemented the recommendati on of the original Panel, the Appellate Body, 
and the DSB to bring its measure into conformity  with its obligations under the AD Agreement.  
On 8 January 2003, India informed the DSB that it in tended to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the Panel in its Re port. On 6 March 2003, the Appellate Body informed 
the DSB that it was not able to circulate its report within the 60-day deadline and that it intended to do 
so no later than 8 April 2003. On 8 April 2003, th e Appellate Body circulated its Report. The 
Appellate Body:  
• upheld the Panel's finding that India's claim under Article 3.5 was not properly before the 
Panel and, consequently, declined to rule on it,  
• reversed the Panel's finding that the EC did not act inconsistently with paragraphs 1 and 2 of 
Article 3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement,  
• declined to rule on the Panel's finding that th e EC applied the second alternative in the second 
sentence of Article 6.10 for limiting its exam ination in this investigation; and   WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 183 
 
 
  • found that the Panel properly discharged its duties under Article 17.6 of the Anti Dumping 
Agreement and Article 11 of the DSU and, therefore, upheld the Panel's finding that the EC had information before it on the relevant economic  factors listed in Article 3.4 of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement when making its injury determination.  
The Appellate Body recommended that the DSB request the EC to bring its measure into conformity 
with the Anti-Dumping Agreement. At its meeting on 24 April 2003, the DSB adopted the Appellate 
Body Report and the Panel Report, as modi fied by the Appellate Body Report.  
7. WT/DS132 – Mexico – Anti-Dumping Investigation of High-Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) from the United States 
On 12 October 2000, the US requested that the DSB refer the matter to the original panel, pursuant to 
Article 21.5 of the DSU, in order to establish wh ether Mexico had correctly implemented the DSB's 
recommendations. At its meeting of 23 October 2000,  the DSB referred the matter to the original 
panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. The EC , Jamaica and Mauritius reserved their third-party 
rights. The US and Mexico informed the DSB th at they were discussing mutually agreeable 
procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU in rela tion to this matter. On 13 November 2000, the 
Panel was composed.  
The Article 21.5 Panel circulated its report on 22 June 2001. The Panel concluded that Mexico's 
imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of HFCS from the US on the basis of the 
SECOFI redetermination was inconsistent with the requirements of the AD Agreement in that 
Mexico's inadequate consideration of the impact of dumped imports on the domestic industry, and its 
inadequate consideration of the potential effect of the alleged restraint agreement in its determination 
of likelihood of substantially increased importation,  are not consistent with the provisions of 
Articles 3.1, 3.4, 3.7 and 3.7(i) of the AD Agreemen t. The Panel therefore considered that Mexico has 
failed to implement the recommendation of the origin al Panel and the DSU to bring its measure into 
conformity with its obligations under the AD Agreement.  
On 24 July 2001, Mexico appealed the above Pane l report. In particular, Mexico requested the 
Appellate Body to examine and reverse the Panel's conclusions that Mexico's imposition of definitive 
anti-dumping duties on imports of HFCS from the United States, on the basis of SECOFI's 
redetermination, was inconsistent with the requirements of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, in that  
• Mexico's inadequate considerati on of the impact of dumped im ports on the domestic industry, 
and its inadequate consideration of the potential e ffect of the alleged restraint agreement in its 
determination of likelihood of substantially in creased importation, are not consistent with the 
provisions of Article 3.1, 3.4, 3.7 and 3. 7(i) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, and  
• Mexico therefore failed to implement the recommendation of the original Panel and of the DSB to bring its measure into conformity with its obligations under the Anti-Dumping Agreement;  
• and that it has nullified or impaired benefits accruing to the United States under that 
Agreement.  
According to Mexico, these conclusions are based on erroneous matters of law and legal 
interpretations of various provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the DSU.  
On 20 September 2001, the Appellate Body informed that the issuance of the report would be delayed. The Report was circulated to the Memb ers on 22 October 2001. The Appellate Body upheld WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 184 
 
 
  the contested findings of the Panel and therefore recommended the DSB to request Mexico to bring its 
anti-dumping measure into conformity with its obli gations under that Agreement. On 21 November 
2001, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report a nd the Panel Report, as upheld by the Appellate 
Body Report.  
8. WT/DS126 – Australia – Subsidies Provided to  Producers and Exporters of Automotive 
Leather 
On 4 October 1999, the United States informed the DSB that it believed that the measures taken by 
Australia to comply with the rulings and recommend ations of the DSB were not consistent with the 
Subsidies Agreement and the DSU, and therefore re quested that the original panel be reconvened 
pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. At its meeti ng on 14 October 1999, the DSB agreed to reconvene 
the original panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. The EC and Mexico reserved their third-party 
rights. On 1 November 1999, the Compliance Panel was composed.  
The report of the panel was circulated to Member s on 21 January 2000. The panel determined that 
Australia had failed to comply with the DSB's recommendations within 90 days. The DSB adopted 
the review panel's report on 11 Febr uary 2000. On 24 July 2000, the parties notified the DSB that they 
had reached a mutually satisfactory solution in regard  to implementation of the findings of the review 
panel.  
9. WT/DS108 – United States – Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations" 
On 7 December 2000, the EC notified the DSB that consultations had failed to settle the dispute and 
that it was requesting the establishment of a panel purs uant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. At its meeting 
of 20 December 2000, the DSB agreed to refer the matter to the original pa nel. Australia, Canada, 
India, Jamaica and Japan reserved their third party rights. On 5 January 2001, the Panel was 
composed. On 21 December 2000, pursuant to an agre ement between the partie s, the US and the EC 
jointly requested the Article 22.6 DSU arbitrator to suspend the arbitration proceeding until adoption of the panel report or, if there is an appeal, adopti on of the Appellate Body report. The arbitration was 
accordingly suspended.  
On 20 August 2001, the compliance panel report was ci rculated to the Members. The Panel concluded 
that the FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Ex clusion Act of 2000 (the amended FSC legislation) 
was still inconsistent with Articles 3.1(a) and 3. 2 of the SCM Agreement, with 10.1 and 8 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture and with Article III:4 of the GATT 1994.  
On 15 October 2001, the US notified its decision  to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the pa nel report. On 14 January 2002, th e Appellate Body circulated its 
Report to the Members. The Appellate Body:  
• upheld the Panel's findings that the US acted inconsistently with its obligations under the 
SCM Agreement, the Agreement on Agriculture, and the GATT 1994 through the FSC amended legislation, a measur e taken by the United States to implement the recommendations 
and rulings made by the DSB in th e original proceedings in the 
United States – FSC dispute;  
• with respect to third party rights, found that th e Panel erred in its inte rpretation of Article 10.3 
of the DSU in declining to rule that all written submissions of the parties filed prior to the 
first meeting of the Panel must be provided to the third parties.  
At its meeting on 29 January 2002, the DSB adopted  the Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report, 
as upheld by the Appellate Body Report.   WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 185 
 
 
  On 13 January 2005, the EC notified the DSB that consultations had failed to  settle the dispute and 
that it was requesting the establishment of a panel purs uant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. At its meeting 
of 25 January 2005, the DSB deferred the establishm ent of a panel. At its meeting of 17 February 
2005, the DSB agreed to refer the matter to the original panel.  
On 22 April 2005, the European Communities requested  the Director-General to compose the panel. 
On 2 May 2005, the Director-General composed the panel. On 2 August 2005, the Panel informed the 
DSB that given the particular circumstances of this case and the schedule agreed after consultations 
with parties to this dispute, it was not possible fo r the Panel to complete its work within the 90-day 
period as foreseen in Article 21.5, and that the Pane l expected to complete its work by the second 
week of August. 
On 30 September 2005, the Panel Report was circulat ed to Members. The Panel found that the United 
States has failed to implement fully the DSB reco mmendations and rulings arising from the original 
dispute and first compliance proceedings.  On 24 November 2005, the United States notified its 
decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law covered in the Panel Report and certain legal interpretations de veloped by the Panel. 
On 10 January 2006, the Appellate Body informed  the DSB that due to the time required for 
completion and translation of the report, the Appellate  Body would not be able to circulate its report 
within the 60-day period, and that it estimated that  the report would be circulated no later than 13 
February 2006.  The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members on 13 February 2006.  In its report, the Appellate Body upheld the Pa nel's findings.  At its m eeting on 14 March 2006, the 
DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as upheld by the Appellate Body report. 
10. WT/DS103, WT/DS113 – Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products 
On 16 February 2001, the US and New Zealand re quested the DSB to refer the problems with the 
implementation of the original report to the orig inal panel pursuant to Article 21.5 DSU. At its 
meeting of 1 March 2001, the DSB referred the matter to the original panel. Australia, the EC and 
Mexico reserved their third party rights. On 12 April 2001, the compliance Panel was composed.  
The compliance Panel circulated its report on 11 Ju ly 2001. It concluded that Canada, through the 
CEM scheme and the continued operation of Special M ilk Class 5(d), has acted inconsistently with its 
obligations under Articles 3.3 and 8 of the Agreemen t on Agriculture, by providing export subsidies 
within the meaning of Article 9.1(c) of the Agreement on Agriculture in excess of its quantity 
commitment levels specified in its Schedule for e xports of cheese, for the marketing year 2000/2001.  
On 4 September 2001, Canada appealed the complia nce Panel report before the Appellate Body. In 
particular, Canada appealed the Panel's finding that  the Canadian measures in question constitute an 
export subsidy within the meaning of Article 9.1(c)of the Agreement on Agriculture. Canada 
considered that the Panel's finding that commercial export sales constitute payments that are financed 
by virtue of governmental action is based on err oneous findings on issues of law and on related legal 
interpretations with respect to the interpretation and application of the said Article 9.1(c).  
The report of the Appellate Body was circulated  to Members on 3 December 2001. The Appellate 
Body reversed the compliance Panel's findings to th e effect that the supply of CEM by domestic milk 
producers to domestic dairy processors involves "payme nts" on the export of milk "that are financed 
by virtue of governmental action" under Article 9.1(c) of the Agreement on Agriculture. The 
Appellate Body concluded that, in the light of the factual findings made by the Panel and the 
uncontested facts in the Panel record, it was unable to  complete the analysis of the claims made by WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 186 
 
 
  New Zealand and the United States under Articles 9. 1(c) or 10.1 of the Agreement on Agriculture, or 
the claim made by the United States under Article 3.1 of the SCM Agreement. At its meeting on 18 
December 2001, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body  Report and the Panel Report, as reversed by the 
Appellate Body Report.  
On 6 December 2001, the US submitted to the DSB a second recourse for the establishment of a panel 
pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. The US submits that, since the Appellate Body's 21.5 Report did 
not make any findings on the consistency of Canada's  new measures, the US continues to believe that 
Canada had failed to comply with the original r ecommendations and rulings of the DSB. On the same 
date, New Zealand made a similar request.  
At its meeting on 18 December 2001, the DSB agreed, pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU, to refer to 
the original Panel, for the second time, the matter ra ised by New Zealand and the US. At the meeting, 
the EC and Australia reserved third-party rights to participate in the Panel's proceedings. On 28 December 2001, Argentina also reserved its third-party rights to participate in the Panel's proceedings.  
On 18 December 2001, Canada c oncluded with New Zealand and th e US respectively, additional 
understandings regarding procedures under Article 21 and 22 of the DSU. Pursuant to both 
understandings, Canada and the respective party agree to request that the arbitration requested by Canada under Article 22.6 of the DSU remain suspe nded pending the work of the compliance Panel.  
On 17 January 2002, the Panel was composed. On 26 July 2002, the Report was circulated to the Members. The Panel concluded that Canada, thr ough the CEM scheme and the continued operation of 
Special Milk Class 5(d), had acted inconsistently with its obligations under Articles 3.3 and 8 of the Agreement on Agriculture, by providing export subsidi es within the meaning of Article 9.1(c) of the 
Agreement on Agriculture in excess of its quantity commitment levels specified in its Schedule for 
exports of cheese and "other dairy products". It also concluded that Canada had acted inconsistently 
with its obligations under Article 10.1 of the Agreement on Agriculture and that therefore Canada had 
acted inconsistently with its obligations unde r Article 8 of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
Accordingly, the Panel recommended that the DS B request Canada to bring its dairy products 
marketing regime into conformity with its oblig ations in respect of export subsidies under the 
Agreement on Agriculture.  
On 23 September 2002, Canada notified its intenti on to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the compliance panel. On 20 December 2002, the Appellate Body 
circulated its report. The Appellate Body upheld the Panel's finding that the measure at issue—the 
supply of "commercial export milk" ("CEM") by Canadian milk producers to Canadian dairy 
processors—involves export subsidies in the form of  "payments" on the export of milk that are 
"financed by virtue of governmental action" w ithin the meaning of Article 9.1(c) of the Agreement on 
Agriculture . It reversed the Panel's interpretation of the rules on burden of proof in Article 10.3 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture . However, the Appellate Body held that  this error did not affect any of the 
Panel's other findings under the Agreement on Agriculture . In view of its conclusion under 
Article 9.1(c) of the Agreement on Agriculture , the Appellate Body declined to rule on the Panel's 
alternative finding under Article 10.1 of that Agreement.  
On 17 January 2003, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report, as modified 
by the Appellate Body Report.   WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 187 
 
 
  11. WT/DS99 – United States – Anti-Dumping  Duty on Dynamic Random Access Memory 
Semiconductors (DRAMS) of One Megabit or Above from Korea 
On 9 March 2000, Korea informed the DSB that it believed that the measures taken by the United 
States to comply with the rulings and recommendations of the DSB were not consistent with the Anti-
Dumping Agreement and Article X:1 of GATT 1994. Ko rea therefore requested that this matter be 
referred to the original panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. On 6 April 2000, Korea submitted a 
new request to the effect that the matter be referred to the original panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of 
the DSU. At its meeting on 25 April 2000, the DSB agr eed to reconvene the orig inal panel pursuant to 
Article 21.5 of the DSU. The EC reserved its r eserved its third-party rights. On 11 May 2000, the 
Compliance Panel was composed.  
On 19 September 2000, Korea requested the Panel to suspend its work, including the issuance of the interim report, "until further notification" pursuant to  Article 12.12 of the DSU. The Panel, in a letter 
sent to the parties on 21 September 2000, agreed to this request. On 20 October 2000, the parties 
notified the DSB of a mutually satisfactory solution to the matter, involving the revocation of the antidumping order at issue as the result of a five-year "sunset" review by the US Department of 
Commerce.  
12. WT/DS70 – Canada – Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft 
On 23 November 1999, Brazil requested the establi shment of a panel under Article 21.5 because it 
believed that Canada had not take n measures to comply fully with the rulings and recommendations 
of the DSB. Brazil and Canada reached an agreem ent concerning the procedures to be applicable 
pursuant to Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU and Article 4 of the Subsidies Agreement. At its meeting on 9 December 1999, the DSB agreed to reconvene th e original panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the 
DSU. Australia, the EC and the US reserved thei r third-party rights. On 17 December 1999, the 
Compliance Panel was composed.  
The report of the compliance panel was circulated to Members on 9 May 2000. The panel found:  
• that Canada had implemented the recommenda tion of the DSB that Canada withdraw 
Technology Partnership Canada (TPC) assistance to the Canadian regional aircraft industry 
within 90 days,  
• but that Canada had failed to  implement the recommendation that it withdraw the Canada 
Account assistance to the Canadian regiona l aircraft industry within 90 days.  
With regard to the latter finding, the panel consid ered that the measures taken by Canada were not 
sufficient to ensure that future Canada Account transactions in the Canadian regional aircraft sector would be in conformity with the interest rate pr ovisions of the OECD Arrangement and would thereby 
qualify for the safe haven in item (k) of Annex I of the Subsidies Agreement. The panel therefore 
concluded that Canada's measures did not ensure th at such Canada Account transactions would not be 
prohibited export subsidies.  
On 22 May 2000, Brazil notified its intention to app eal certain issues of law and legal interpretations 
developed by the compliance panel. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members on 
21 July 2000. The Appellate Body found that the re view panel erred in declining to examine one of 
Brazil's arguments to the effect that the revised TPC programme is inconsistent with Article 3.1(a) of 
the Subsidies Agreement. The Appellate Body also found, however, that Brazil had failed to establish 
that the revised TPC programme is inconsistent with  Article 3.1(a) of the Subsidies Agreement and, 
accordingly, that Brazil had failed to establish that Canada has not implemented the recommendations WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 188 
 
 
  of the DSB. The DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the panel report, as modified by the 
Appellate Body report, at its meeting on 4 August 20 00. Canada stated its intention to implement the 
recommendations of the DSB in respect of the Canada Account Programme.  
13. WT/DS58 – United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products 
On the grounds that the US had not implemented ap propriately the recommendations of the DSB, on 
12 October 2000, Malaysia requested that the matter be referred to the original panel pursuant to 
Article 21.5 of the DSU. In particular, Malaysia considered that by not lifting the import prohibition and not taking the necessary measures to allow the importation of certain shrimp and shrimp products 
in an unrestrictive manner, the United States had failed to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. At its meeting of 23 October 2000, the DSB referred the matter to the original 
panel pursuant to Article 21.5 DSU. Australia, Canada, the EC, Ecuador, India, Japan, Mexico, 
Pakistan, Thailand and Hong Kong, China reserved th eir third-party rights. On 8 November 2000, the 
Panel was composed.  
The Panel circulated its report on 15 June 2001. The Panel concluded that:  
• the measure adopted by the US in order to co mply with the recommendations and rulings of 
the DSB violated Article XI.1 of the GATT 1994;  
• in light of the recommendations and rulings of the DSB, Section 609 of Public Law 101-162, 
as implemented by the Revised Guidelines of 8 July 1999 and as applied so far by the US authorities, was justified under Article XX of the GATT 1994 as long as the conditions stated in the findings of this Report, in particular the ongoing serious good faith efforts to reach a 
multilateral agreement, remain satisfied.  
• should any one of the conditio ns referred above cease to be met in the future, the 
recommendations of the DSB may no longer  be complied with. In such a case, any 
complaining party in the original case may be entitl ed to have further recourse to Article 21.5 
of the DSU.  
On 23 July 2001, Malaysia notified the DSB its inte ntion to appeal the above report. In particular, 
Malaysia sought review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's finding that the US measure at issue 
does not constitute unjustifiable or arbitrary discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail and that it is therefore within the scope of the measures permitted under Article XX 
of the GATT 1994 as long as the conditions stated in the findings of the Panel Report, in particular the 
ongoing serious good faith efforts to reach a multilateral agreement, remain satisfied.  
On 19 September, the Appellate Body informed the DS B of a delay in the circulation of its Report in 
this appeal. The Report was circulated to the Members on 22 October 2001. The Appellate Body 
upheld the contested findings of the Panel: Sinc e it had upheld the Panel's findings that the US 
measure was now applied in a manner that met the requirements of Article XX of the GATT 1994, the 
Appellate Body refrained from making any r ecommendations. On 21 November 2001, the DSB 
adopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel Re port, as upheld by the Appellate Body Report.  
14. WT/DS46 – Brazil – Export Financing Programme for Aircraft 
On 23 November 1999, Canada requested the establishment of a panel under Article 21.5 of the DSU, requesting that the panel find that Brazil had not ta ken measures to comply fully with the rulings and 
recommendations of the DSB. Canada and Brazil r eached an agreement concerning the procedures to 
be applicable pursuant to Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU and Article 4 of the Subsidies Agreement. At  WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 189 
 
 
  its meeting on 9 December 1999, the DSB agreed to reconvene the original panel pursuant to 
Article 21.5 of the DSU. Australia, the EC and the US reserved their third-party rights. On 17 
December 1999, the compliance panel was composed.  
The report of the compliance panel was circulated to Members on 9 May 2000. The panel found that 
Brazil's measures to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB either did not exist or 
were not consistent with the Subsidies Agreement.  In reaching this conclusion, the panel notably 
rejected Brazil's defence that PROEX payments were permitted under item (k) of Annex I of the 
Subsidies Agreement, adding that, if a WTO Memb er encountered an export credit that had been 
provided on terms that it could not  meet consistent with the SCM Agreement, the proper response was 
to challenge that export credit in WTO dispute settlement. On 22 May 2000, Brazil notified its 
intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed by  the review panel. The 
report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members on 21 July 2000. The Appellate Body upheld 
the review panel's conclusion that Brazil has failed to implement the recommendation of the DSB 
because of the continued issuance by Brazil of NTN-I bonds, after 18 November 1999, pursuant to 
letters of commitment issued before 18 November 1999. The Appellate Body also upheld the review 
panel's findings that payments made under the revised PROEX are prohibited by Article 3 of the Subsidies Agreement and are not justified under ite m (k) of the Illustrative List of the same 
Agreement. The Appellate Body therefore upheld th e review panel's conclusion that Brazil has failed 
to implement the recommendations of the DSB. The DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body  report, at its meeting on 4 August 2000.  
On 22 January 2001, Canada requested the DSB to refer the matter again to the original panel, 
pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. At its meeti ng of 16 February 2001, the DSB referred the matter 
to the original panel. Australia, the EC and Korea reserved their third-party rights. The Panel circulated its report on 26 July 2001.  The Panel concluded as follows:  
• It has not been established that PROEX III as such  was inconsistent with Article 3.1(a) of the 
SCM Agreement;  
• PROEX III as such is justified under the second paragraph of item (k) of the Illustrative List of Export Subsidies of Annex I of the SCM Agreement;  
• PROEX III cannot be justified under paragr aph 1 of the above-mentioned item.  
At its meeting on 23 August 2001, the DSB a dopted the Panel Report on this second recourse to 
Article 21.5 of the DSU.  
15. WT/DS27 – European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and 
Distribution of Bananas 
On 15 December 1998, the EC requested the establishment of a panel under Artic le 21.5 to determine 
that the implementing measures of the EC must be presumed to conform to WTO rules unless 
challenged in accordance with DSU procedures. On 18 December 1998, Ecuador requested the re-establishment of the original panel to examine whether the EC measures to implement the 
recommendations of the DSB are WTO-consistent . At its meeting on 12 January 1999, the DSB 
agreed to reconvene the original panel, pursuan t to Article 21.5 of the DSU, to examine both 
Ecuador's and the EC's requests. Jamaica, Nicaragua , Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Dominican 
Republic, Dominica, St. Lucia, Mauritius, St. Vincent, i ndicated their interest to join as third parties in 
both requests, while Ecuador and India indicated thei r third-party interest only in the EC request. On 
18 January 1999, the Compliance Panels were composed. The two Compliance Panel Reports were circulated on 12 April 1999. WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 190 
 
 
  In the panel requested by the EC, pursuant to Artic le 21.5 of the DSU, the panel found that, because a 
challenge had actually been made by Ecuador regarding the WTO-c onsistency of the EC measures 
taken in implementation of the DSB recommendations, it was unable to agree with the EC that the EC 
must be presumed to be in compliance with th e recommendations of the DSB. The report of the 
compliance panel requested by the EC, under Article 21.5 of the DSU, was never adopted by the 
DSB. In the panel requested by Ecuador, pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU, the panel found that the 
implementation measures taken by the EC in compliance with the recommendations of the DSB were 
not fully compatible with the EC's WTO obligations . The report of the compliance panel requested by 
Ecuador, under Article 21.5 of the DSU, was adopted by the DSB on 6 May 1999.  
16. WT/DS18 – Australia – Measures Affecting the Importation of Salmon 
Canada made a request, pursuant to DSU Article 21. 5, for determination by the original panel of 
whether the measures taken by Australia in im plementing the recommendations of the DSB were 
WTO-consistent.. At its m eeting of 28 July 1999, the DSB agreed to Canada's request and referred the 
matter for determination of the WTO-consistency of the implementing measures to the original panel. 
The EC, Norway and the US reserved their third-party rights. The DSB also referred the Canadian 
request for suspension of concessions to arbitration in  view of Australia's challenge of the level of 
nullification suffered by Canada. On 7 September 1999, the Compliance Panel and Arbitrator were 
composed.  
On 18 February 2000, the report of the DSU Article 21.5 panel was circulated to Members. The panel 
found that:  
• due to delays in the entry into force of  several implementing measures which extended 
beyond the reasonable period of time within wh ich Australia had to implement the DSB 
recommendations, no measures to comply existed in  the sense of Article 21.5 of the DSU in 
respect of a number of covered products and dur ing specific periods of time. As a result, 
during those periods, Australia failed to bring its measure into conformity with the SPS 
Agreement in the sense referred to in Article 22.6 of the DSU.  
• Australia, by requiring that only salmon product that is "consumer-ready" as specifically 
defined can be imported into Australia and released from quarantine, was maintaining 
sanitary measures that were not "based on" a risk assessment, which was contrary to 
Articles 5.1 and 2.2 of the SPS Agreement. The panel also considered the same requirement 
to be in violation of Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement.  
• Finally, the panel found that Australia violated  Articles 5.1 and 2.2 of the SPS Agreement as a 
result of a measure enacted by the Government of Tasmania that effectively prohibits the 
importation of certain Canadian salmon product in to most parts of Tasmania without being 
based on a risk assessment and without sufficient scientific evidence.  
At its meeting on 20 March 2000, the DSB adopt ed the report of the compliance panel.  
VI. IMPLEMENTATION STATUS OF ADOPTED REPORTS 
1. WT/DS312 – Korea – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Certain Paper from 
Indonesia 
Complaint by Indonesia.  At the DSB meeting on 20 December 2005, Korea stated that they would need a reasonable period of time to implement th e DSB recommendations and rulings and that they  WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 191 
 
 
  were ready to consult with Indonesia.  On 10 Febr uary 2006, the parties informed the DSB that they 
had agreed that the reasonable period of time shall be eight months, expiring on 28 July 2006. 
On 17 August 2006, Korea and Indonesia notified th e DSB of an Understanding regarding procedures 
under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU. 
2. WT/DS308 – Mexico – Tax Measures on Soft Drinks and other Beverages 
Complaint by Mexico. At the DSB meeting on 21 April 2006, Mexico informed the DSB that it would 
need a reasonable period of time to implement the DSB recommendations and rulings in this case.  On 22 June 2006, the United States informed the DSB that  discussions between the parties had so far not 
allowed them to reach an agreement on the reasonable period of time for Mexico to comply with the DSB recommendations and rulings. Therefore, the United States requested that the reasonable period 
of time be determined through binding arbitration pursua nt to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU.  On 3 July 
2006, Mexico and the United States informed the DS B that they had mutually agreed that the 
reasonable period of time for Mexico to comply with the DSB recommendations and rulings shall be nine months and eight days, expi ring on 1 January 2007.  However, if the Mexican Congress enacts 
legislation between 1 December a nd 31 December 2006, the reasonable period of time shall be ten 
months and seven days, expiring on 31 January 2007.  In light of this agreem ent, the United States 
withdrew its request for arbitration pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU. 
3. WT/DS302 – Dominican Republic – Measures Affecting the Importation and Internal Sale of Cigarettes 
Complaint by Honduras. At the DSB meeting on 13 June 2005, the Dominican Republic announced its intention to implement the recommendations and ru lings of the DSB, and indicated that it would 
need a reasonable period of time to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.  Both 
parties failed to agree on a reasonable time of  period for implementation in accordance with 
Article 21.3(b) of the DSU. On 12 July 2005, Honduras requested that the reasonable period of time be determined through binding arbitration pursuant to  Article 21.3(c) of the DSU.  On 21 July 2005, 
both parties jointly requested Mr. John Lockhart to act as arbitrator pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the 
DSU, and on 22 July 2005 Mr. Lockhart accepted the appointment to serve as arbitrator.  On 29 July 
2005, the parties requested that the arbitration procee dings be suspended so as to allow the parties to 
further explore the possibility of reaching an agreement on a reasonable period of time for 
implementation. On 4 August 2005, the Arbitrator agr eed to treat the matter as suspended until further 
notice.  On 16 August 2005, the parties jointly inform ed the Arbitrator that they had mutually agreed 
that the Dominican Republic shall bring the measure at issue into conformity within 24 months from 19 May 2005. On 29 August 2005, the Arbitrator's Report was circulated to the Members.    
4. WT/DS301 – European Communities – Measures Affecting Trade in Commercial 
Vessels 
Complaint by Korea. At the DSB meeting of 20 July 2005, the European Communities informed the 
DSB that it had implemented the DSB's recommendations  and rulings in this case, as the Temporary 
Defense Mechanism (TDM) was not renewed when it expired on 31 March 2005.  With respect to national schemes, the European  Communities stated that since the TDM was no longer in force, 
members states could no longer grant operating aid.   WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 192 
 
 
  5. WT/DS299 – European Communities – Co untervailing Measures on Dynamic Random 
Access Memory Chips from Korea 
Complaint by Korea.  At the DSB meeting on 31 August 2005, the European Communities announced 
its intention to fully comply with the DSB's recomme ndations and rulings in th is case.  On 12 October 
2005, the parties informed the DSB that they had agr eed, pursuant to Article 21.3(b) of the DSU, that 
the reasonable period of time for the European Communities to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB shall be 8 months, expiring on 3 April 2006. 
At the DSB meeting on 21 April 2006, the Eur opean Communities said that they had fully 
implemented the DSB's recommendations and rulings  by adopting a new regulation which entered 
into force on 13 April 2006.  Korea disagreed and said that the European Communities had not fully 
implemented the DSB's recommendations and rulings. 
6. WT/DS296 – United States – Countervailing Duty Investigation on Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconducto rs (DRAMs) from Korea 
Complaint by Korea. At the DSB meeting on 3 August 2005, the United States announced its intention to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this case, and said that it would 
need a reasonable period of time to do so.  On 7 November 2005, the parties informed the DSB that they had mutually agreed that the reasonable period of time shall be 7 months and 16 days, expiring 
on 8 March 2006.  
7. WT/DS295 – Mexico – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Beef and Rice 
Complaint by the United States.  At the DSB mee ting on 20 January 2006, Mexico stated that it 
intended to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB but that it would need a 
reasonable period of time to do so.  Mexico was ready to consult with the United States with a view to 
agreeing on the duration of the reasonable period of time.  On 18 May 2006, the parties informed the 
DSB that they had agreed that the reasonable period of time: 
• with respect to paragraphs 8.1 and 8.3 of th e panel report, and para graph 350(b) and (c) of 
the Appellate Body report, shall be  8 months, expiring on 20 August 2006 
• with respect to paragraph 8.5 of the panel report and paragraph 350(d) of the Appellate Body report, shall be 12 months, expiring on 20 December 2006. 
8. WT/DS294 – United States – Laws, Regulations and Methodology for Calculating Dumping Margins ("Zeroing") 
Complaint by the European Communities.  At the DSB meeting on 30 May 2006, the United States 
announced that it intended to implement the DSB r ecommendations and rulings but that they would 
need a reasonable period of time to do so.   On 28 July 2006, the United States and the European 
Communities informed the DSB, pursuant to Article 21.3( b) of the DSU, that they had agreed that the 
reasonable period of time for the United States to  implement the DSB recommendations and rulings 
shall be 11 months, expiring on 9 April 2007.  
9. WT/DS285 – United States – Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services 
Complaint by Antigua and Barbuda. At the DSB meeting of 19 May 2005, the United States stated its intention to implement the DSB's recommendations and indicated that it would need a reasonable  WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 193 
 
 
  period of time to do so.  As the Antigua and Bar buda and the United States had failed to agree on a 
reasonable time of period for implementation in accordance with Article 21.3(b) of the DSU, on 
6 June 2005, Antigua and Barbuda requested that the reasonable period of time be determined through 
binding arbitration pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU.  On 30 June 2005, pursuant to the request from Antigua and Barbuda, the Director-General a ppointed Dr. Claus-Dieter Ehlermann to act as 
arbitrator under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU.  On 19 August 2005, the Arbitrator circulated his Award to the Members, determining that the reasonable period of time for implementation was 11 months 
and 2 weeks from 20 April 2005, expiring on 3 April 2006. 
On 24 May 2006, the parties informed the DSB that , given the disagreement as to the existence or 
consistency of measures taken by the United States to comply with the recommendations and rulings 
of the DSB, they had agreed on certain procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU. 
On 8 June 2006, Antigua and Barbuda requested c onsultations under Article 21.5 of the DSU.  On 
6 July 2006, Antigua and Barbuda requested the establishment of an Article 21.5 panel.  At its 
meeting on 19 July 2006, the DSB referred the matter to the original panel, if possible.  On 16 August 2006, the Panel was composed. 
10. WT/DS282 – United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods 
(OCTG) from Mexico 
Complaint by Mexico.  At the DSB meeting on 20 December 2005, the United States stated its 
intention to implement the recommendations and ruli ngs of the DSB in a manner that respected its 
WTO obligations.  He stated that they would need a reasonable period of time and was willing to discuss the matter with Mexico.  On 15 February 2006, the parties informed the DSB that they had 
mutually agreed that the reasonable period of time for the United States to implement the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB shall be six months, expiring on 28 May 2006. 
At the DSB meeting on 30 May 2006, Mexico said that the reasonable period of time had expired on 
28 May 2006 and it appeared that the United States had not brought its measures into conformity.  
The United States said that it was committed to im plementing the DSB recommendations and rulings 
and would apprise Mexico of any developments. 
On 11 July 2006, Mexico and the United States in formed that DSB of an Understanding regarding 
procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DS U.  On 21 August 2006, Mexico requested 
consultations under Article 21.5 of the DSU. 
11. WT/DS277 – United States – Investigation of the International Trade Commission in Softwood Lumber from Canada 
Complaint by Canada. At the DSB meeting on 19 May 2004, the United States stated that it was the intention of the US to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in a manner that respected its WTO obligations, and that it would re quire a reasonable period of time to implement the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB and was r eady to consult with Canada in accordance with 
Article 21.3(b) of the DSU. On 26 July 2004, both parties jointly informed the DSB that they were 
holding bilateral consultations on the period of tim e required for the United States to implement the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB and confirmed that should recourse to arbitration be sought, the award of the arbitrator made within the agreed  45-day time period shall be deemed to be the award 
of the arbitrator for the purpose of Article 21.3(c) of the DSU. On 1 October 2004, both parties jointly informed the DSB that they had mu tually agreed that the reasonable period of time to implement the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB shall be 9 months, that is from 26 April 2004 to 26 January 
2005.  WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 194 
 
 
  At the DSB meeting on 25 January 2005, the United States stated that it had implemented the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings by amending the US anti-dumping and countervailing duty order 
concerned, and Canada stated it was reviewi ng the results of the US implementation.  
Considering that the measures allegedly taken by  the United States to comply with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings were  inconsistent with US oblig ations under relevant WTO 
Agreements, on 14 February 2004 Ca nada requested the DSB of both the establishment of a panel 
under Article 21.5 of the DSU and authorization to  suspend concessions or other obligations with 
respect to the United States under Article 22.2 of the DSU.  
On 23 February 2005, Canada and the United States informed the DSB of an Understanding regarding 
procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU, which provides that Article 22.6 arbitration be 
suspended until adoption by the DSB of the recommendations and rulings in the Article 21.5 
compliance proceedings.  
In respect of the Article 22 proceeding, on 23 Febr uary 2005 the United States requested this matter to 
be referred to arbitration in accordance with Article  22.6 of the DSU. At its meeting of 25 February 
2005, the DSB agreed that the matter raised by the United States be referred to arbitration in 
accordance with Article 22.6 of the DSU. In respect of the Article 21.5 proceeding, at its meeting of 25 February 2005 the DSB decided to refer the matte r raised by Canada to the original panel. 
 Pursuant to the Understanding, the Article 22.6 arbitration proceeding was suspended until the 
completion of the Article 21.5 proceeding. On 2 Ma rch 2005, the Article 21.5 Panel was composed.  
On 25 May 2005, the Chairman of the Article 21.5 Panel informed the DSB that it would not be 
possible for the Panel to complete its work in 90 da ys in light of scheduling conflicts, and that the 
Panel expected to complete its work in September 2005.  
On 15 November 2005, the Article 21.5 Panel circulat ed its Report to Members.  In its Report, the 
Panel found that the determination of the US IT C implementing the Panel and DSB recommendations 
in the original dispute is not inconsistent with the United States' obligations under the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the SCM Agreement.  
12. WT/DS276 – Canada – Measures Relating to  Exports of Wheat and Treatment of 
Imported Grain 
Complaint by the United States. At the DSB meetin g on 18 October 2004, Canada stated that it was 
the intention of Canada to implement the recommenda tions and rulings of the DSB in a manner that 
respected its WTO obligations, and that it would re quire a reasonable period of time to implement the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB and was ready to consult with the United States in 
accordance with Article 21.3(b) of the DSU.  
On 15 November 2004, Canada and the United States informed the DSB that they had agreed that the 
reasonable period of time shall be is 10 months and 5 days, that is, 27 September 2004 to 1 August 
2005.  
At the DSB meeting on 31 August 2005, Canada  announced that amendments to the Canada 
Transportation Act and the Canada Grain Act and associated regulator y changes had come into force 
on 1 August 2005 thus bringing Canada into compliance with the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings.    WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 195 
 
 
  13. WT/DS273 – Korea – Measures Affectin g Trade in Commercial Vessels 
Complaint by the European Communities. At the DSB meeting of 11 April 2005, Korea stated that 
since all loans and guarantees had now been repaid or had already expired, Korea considered that it was in compliance with WTO rules and no further action was required to implement the DSB's recommendations. The European Communities disagreed  with Korea that there was nothing to be 
done in this respect and noted that the Panel ha d recommended that Korea withdraw the individual 
APRG and PSL subsidies within 90 days , pursuant to the SCM Agreement. 
14. WT/DS269, WT/DS286 – European Communities – Customs Classification of Frozen Boneless Chicken Cuts 
Complaints by Brazil (WT/DS269) and Thailand (W T/DS286).  At the DSB meeting on 18 October 
2005, the European Communities announced its  intention to implement the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in this case and said that  it would need a reasonable period of time to do 
so. 
On 22 November 2005, Brazil requested that the reasonable period of time be determined through binding arbitration pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU.  On 9 December 2005, Thailand requested 
that the reasonable period of time be determin ed through binding arbitration pursuant to 
Article 21.3(c) of the DSU.  By joint letter da ted 9 December 2005 from Brazil and the European 
Communities, and joint letter dated 13 Dece mber 2005 from the European Communities and 
Thailand, Mr James Bacchus was requested to act as arbitrator.  On 14 December 2005, Mr Bacchus 
informed Brazil, the European Communities and Thai land that he accepted the appointments to serve 
as arbitrator and that he proposed to  conduct both proceedings simultaneously. 
On 20 February 2006, the Arbitrator decided the reasonable period of time for implementation would 
be nine months and therefore would expire on 27 June 2006. 
At the DSB meeting on 19 June 2006, the European Communities said that they were in the process of 
adopting a Regulation which would fully implement the DSB recommendations and rulings.  The European Communities said they would present a more detailed status report as soon as the 
Regulation was adopted and entered into force.  At the DSB meeting on 19 July 2006, the European 
Communities said that they had fully implemented the DSB recommendations and rulings by adopting 
Commission Regulation (EC) No 949/2006 on 27 J une and implementing it on the same day.  
However, Brazil and Thailand said they were still assessing the scope and effects of the amending 
Regulation and that they would follow closely th e EC's implementation actions.On 14 July 2006, 
Thailand and the European Communities inform ed the DSB of an Understanding regarding 
procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU.  On 26 July 2006, Brazil and the European Communities informed the DSB of an Understanding regarding procedures under Articles 21 and 22 
of the DSU. 
15. WT/DS268 – United States – Sunset Reviews of  Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country 
Tubular Goods from Argentina 
Complaint by Argentina. At the DSB meeting on 14 January 2005, the United States stated that it was 
the intention of the US to implement the recommend ations and rulings of the DSB in a manner that 
respected its WTO obligations, and that it would consult with Argentina to exploring the possibility of 
reaching an agreement on the reasonable period of time to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. On 11 March 2005, Argentina requested the DSB that the reasonable period of 
time be determined through binding arbitration purs uant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, as Argentina 
and the United Stated were not able to reach an agreement. On 16 March 2005, Argentina and the WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 196 
 
 
  United States informed the DSB that both parti es had agreed the period of time for this binding 
arbitration shall be completed no later than 60 days af ter the date of the appointment of the arbitrator, 
as the 90-day period under Article 21.3 (c) was about to expire.  
On 8 April 2005, Mr. A.V. Ganesan, Member of the Appellate Body, informed Argentina and the 
United States that he accepts the appointment to serve as arbitrator. 
On 7 June 2005, the Award of the Arbitrator was ci rculated to Members. He determined that the 
reasonable period of time in this case is 12 months and would thus expire on 17 December 2005.   
At the DSB meeting on 20 December 2005, the United States informed the DSB that it had implemented the DSB recommendations and rulings in this case.  Argentina expressed doubts as to 
whether the US had fully implemented the DSB recommendations and rulings.  On 5 January 2006, 
the parties informed the DSB of agreed pro cedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU. 
On 26 January 2006, Argentina request ed consultations under Article 21. 5 of the DSU.  At its meeting 
on 17 March 2006, the DSB referred the matter raised by  Argentina to the original panel.  China, the 
European Communities, Japan and Mexico reserved their third-party rights.  Subsequently, Korea 
reserved its third-party rights.  On 20 Ma rch 2006, the compliance panel was composed. 
16. WT/DS267 – United States -Subsidies on Upland Cotton 
Complaint by Brazil.  At the DSB meeting of 20 Apr il 2005, the United States stated its intention to 
comply with the recommendations and rulings of  the DSB in a manner that respected its WTO 
obligations and had already begun evaluating options for doing so, and stated that it would require a 
reasonable period of time to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. 
In respect of the prohibited subsidies, with regard to which the reasonable period of time expired on 
1 July 2005, on 4 July 2005 Brazil requested the DSB for authorization to suspend concessions or 
other obligations under Article 4.10 of the SCM Agreem ent and Article 22.2 of the DSU.  With regard 
to the prohibited subsidies, on 5 July 2005 the parties to the dispute jointly notified the DSB that they 
had agreed on the "Agreed Procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding and Article 4 of the SCM Agreement".  On 14 July 2005, the United States submitted 
its objections to the request for authorization by  Brazil pursuant to Article 22.6 of the DSU and 
Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement.  At its mee ting on 15 July 2005, the DSB referred the matter 
raised by the United States to arbitration.  On 17 August 2005, the parties to the dispute jointly 
requested the Chairman of the Arbitrator to su spend the Article 22.6 arbitration proceedings in 
accordance with the Agreed Procedures,  and the Arbitrator suspended the proceedings accordingly.      
In respect of the actionable subsidies, with regard  to which the reasonable period of time expired on 
21 September 2005, on 6 October 2005 Brazil requested the DSB for authorization to suspend concessions or other obligations under Article  7.9 of the SCM Agreement and Article 22.2 of 
the DSU.  On 17 October 2005, the United Stat es submitted its objections to the request for 
authorization by Brazil pursuant to Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 7.10 of the SCM Agreement.  At its meeting on 18 October 2005, the DSB referre d the matter raised by the United States to 
arbitration.  On 21 November 2005, the parties to the dispute jointly requested the Chairman of the 
Arbitrator to suspend the Article 22.6 arbitration proceedings in accord ance with the Agreed 
Procedures, and the Arbitrator suspended the proceedings accordingly.  
On 18 August 2006, Brazil requested the establishment of an Article 21.5 panel.  At its meeting on 
1 September 2006, the DSB deferred the establishment of  an Article 21.5 panel.  Further to a second  WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 197 
 
 
  request, at its meeting on 28 September 2006, the DSB agreed, if possible, to refer the matter raised 
by Brazil to the original panel.  
17. WT/DS265, WT/DS266, WT/DS283 – European Communities – Export Subsidies on Sugar 
Complaints by Australia (WT/DS265), Brazil (WT/DS266) and Thailand (WT/DS283). At the DSB 
meeting on 13 June 2005, the European Communities informed the DSB of its intention to implement 
the recommendations and rulings of the DSB, and stated that it would require a reasonable period of time to implement them.    
On 9 August 2005, the complaining parties to the dispute informed the DSB that as the parties had 
been unable to reach agreement on a reasonable peri od of time for implementation in accordance with 
DSU Article 21.3(b), the complaining parties would lik e to request that the reasonable period of time 
be determined through binding arbitration, pursuan t to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU. On 30 August 
2005, the parties jointly requested Mr. A.V. Ganesan to act as an arbitrator under Article 21.3(c).  On 5 September 2005, Mr. Ganesan accepted the appoi ntment. On 28 October 2005, the Award of the 
arbitrator was circulated to Members, in which the arbitrator determined that the reasonable period of 
time is 12 months and 3 days, expiring 22 May 2006. 
Separately, at the DSB meeting on 27 September 2005, the complaining parties expressed their 
concern about the European Communities' decision to increase exports of sugar by almost 2 million 
tonnes through a declassification system, which woul d regard quota sugar as "C " sugar. The European 
Communities responded that it would comply with th e DSB's recommendations and rulings within the 
reasonable period of time to be fixed by the arbitrator.  
On 8 June 2006, Australia, Braz il and Thailand informed the DSB that they each had reached an 
Understanding under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU with the European Communities. 
 
18. WT/DS264 – United States – Final Dumping Determination on Softwood Lumber from Canada 
Complaint by Canada. At the DSB meeting on 27 Se ptember 2004, the United States stated that it was 
the intention of the US to implement the recommend ations and rulings of the DSB in a manner that 
respected its WTO obligations, and that it would re quire a reasonable period of time to implement the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB and was r eady to consult with Canada in accordance with 
Article 21.3(b) of the DSU.  
As Canada and the United States had been unable to agree on a reasonable period of time, on 18 
October 2004 Canada requests that the reasonable pe riod of time be determined through binding 
arbitration pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU. On 1 November 2004, they agreed that Mr. 
Lockhart act as arbitrator under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU. On 4 November 2004, Mr. Lockhart informed that he accepted the appointment as arbitrator.  
On 6 December 2004, Canada and the United States informed the DSB that, pursuant to Article 21.3(b) of the DSU, both parties had mutua lly agreed that the reasonable period of time to 
implement the recommendations and rulings of the Dispute Settlement Body in the above referenced 
dispute shall be seven and one ha lf months, that is from 31 August 2004 to 15 April 2005. In addition, 
they informed that, in light of the agreement, the proceeding under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU be 
terminated. On 13 December 2004, the Report of Arb itrator was circulated. On 14 February 2005, 
Canada and the United States informed the DSB that both parties had agreed to modify the reasonable 
period of time so as to expire on 2 May 2005.  WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 198 
 
 
  At the DSB meeting on 19 May 2005, the United States stated that that it had implemented the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB, by issuin g on 15 April 2005 a new final determination, in 
which it calculated new rates of dumping with respect  to its antidumping duty investigation on certain 
softwood lumber products from Canada.  
Considering that the measures allegedly taken by  the United States to comply with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings were  inconsistent with US oblig ations under relevant WTO 
Agreements, on 19 May 2005 Canada requested the DSB of the establishment of a panel under 
Article 21.5 of the DSU and authorization to suspe nd concessions or other obligations with respect to 
the United States under Article 22.2 of the DSU.  
On 27 May 2005, Canada and the United States sent to the DSB the understanding between the parties 
regarding procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU. 
In respect of the Article 21.5 proceeding, at its meeting of 1 June 2005 the DSB decided to refer the 
matter raised by Canada to the original panel. China, India, Japan and the European Communities 
reserved their third party rights. 
In respect of the Article 22 proceeding, on 31 May 2005 the United States requested this matter to be 
referred to arbitration in accordance with Article 22. 6 of the DSU. At its meeting of 1 June 2005, the 
DSB agreed that the matter raised by the United States be referred to arbitration in accordance with 
Article 22.6 of the DSU. Pursuant to the bilatera l agreement, the Article 22.6 arbitration proceeding 
was suspended until the completion of the Article 21.5 proceeding.  
On 3 August 2005, following his appointment as a Deputy Director-General of the WTO, the Chairman of the Panel resigned.  Subsequently, on  18 August 2005, Canada requested the Director-
General to appoint a replacement Chairperson.  On  26 August 2005, the Director-General appointed a 
new Chairman of the Panel.  On 16 September 2005,  the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB 
that it would not be possible for the Panel to complete its work within 90 days due to the resignation of the Chairman of the Panel and the need to a ppoint a new Chairman, and scheduling conflicts.  The 
Panel expected to complete its  work in February 2006.  
19. WT/DS257 – United States – Final Countervailing Duty Determination with respect to certain Softwood Lumber from Canada 
Complaint by Canada. On 5 March 2004, the United States informed by letter that it intended to 
comply with the recommendations and rulings of  the DSB in a matter that respects its WTO 
obligations. In that connection, the United States al so stated that it would need a reasonable period of 
time to implement the said recommendations and ruli ngs and stood ready to discuss this matter with 
Canada in accordance with Article 21.3(b) of the DSU. At the DSB meeting on 19 March 2004, the 
United States stated likewise. On 28 April 2004, Canada and the United States informed the DSB that they had agreed that the reasonable period of time sh all be ten months, that is from 17 February 2004 
to 17 December 2004.  
On 10 November 2004, the United States submitted its first status report to the DSB pursuant to the 
DSU 21.6, which explained that the US Department  of Commerce had been collecting and analysing 
information relevant to the recommendations a nd rulings of the DSB in its countervailing duty 
investigation of softwood lumber products from Ca nada, and, on the basis of that information, 
intended to issue a determination in that investigation in the near future.  
At the DSB meeting of 17 December 2004, the United States informed the DSB that it had complied 
with its rulings and recommendations.   WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 199 
 
 
  Considering that the measures allegedly taken by  the United States to comply with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings were  inconsistent with US oblig ations under relevant WTO 
Agreements, on 30 December 2004 Canada requested the DSB of both the establishment of a panel 
under Article 21.5 of the DSU and authorization to  suspend concessions or other obligations with 
respect to the United States under Article 22.2 of the DSU.  
On 14 January 2005, Canada and the United Stat es sent to the DSB the understanding between the 
parties regarding procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU, which provides that Article 22.6 
arbitration be suspended until adoption by the DSB of the recommendations and rulings in the 
Article 21.5 compliance proceedings.  
In respect of the Article 22 proceeding, on 13 Janua ry 2005 the United States requested this matter to 
be referred to arbitration in accordance with Article  22.6 of the DSU. At its meeting of 14 January 
2005, the DSB agreed that the matter raised by the United States was referred to arbitration in 
accordance with Article 22.6 of the DSU. In respect of the Article 21.5 proceeding, at its meeting of 14 January 2005 the DSB decided to refer the matter raised by Canada to the original panel. China 
and the European Communities reser ved their third party rights.  
On 7 February 2005, the parties agreed on the panelis ts (in respect of the Article 21.5 proceeding) and 
arbitrators (in respect of the Article 22.6 proceeding). Pursuant to the joint request by the parties on 15 February 2005, the Article 22.6 arb itration proceeding was suspended.  
On 1 August 2005, the Article 21.5 Panel circulated its Report to Members.  The Panel found that the United States remains in violation of Article 10 a nd 32.1 of the SCM Agreement, and Article VI:3 of 
the GATT 1994.  On 6 September 2005, the United States notified its decision to appeal to the 
Appellate Body certain issues of law covered in the Panel Report and certain  legal interpretations 
developed by the Panel in this dispute.  
On 2 November 2005, the Appellate Body inform ed the DSB that due to the time required for 
completion and translation of the Report, the Appellate Body would not be able to circulate its Report within the 60-day period, and that it estimated that  the Appellate Body Report would be circulated to 
WTO Members no later than 5 December 2005. 
20. WT/DS248, WT/DS249, WT/DS251, WT/DS 252, WT/DS253, WT/DS254, WT/DS258, 
WT/DS259 – United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain Steel Products 
Complaints by the European Communities (W T/DS248), Japan (WT/DS249), Korea (WT/DS251), 
China (WT/DS252), Switzerland (WT/DS253), Norway (WT/DS254), New Zealand (WT/DS258) 
and Brazil (WT/DS259). At the DSB meeting of 10 December 2003, the US informed Members that, 
on 4 December 2003, the President of the United States had issued a proclamation that terminated all 
of the safeguard measures subject to this disput e, pursuant to section 204 of the US Trade Act of 
1974. 
21. WT/DS246 – European Communities – Conditions for the Granting of Tariff 
Preferences to Developing Countries 
Complaint by India. At the DSB meeting on 19 May 2004, the European Communities reaffirmed its 
intention to fully comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in a manner that 
respected its WTO obligations, and that it would ne ed a reasonable period of time to implement the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB and was willing to discuss this matter with India in accordance with Article 21.3(b) of the DSU. On 16 July 2004, India requested that the reasonable WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 200 
 
 
  period of time be determined through binding arbitr ation pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU due 
to the failure of agreement with the European  Communities on this matter. On 4 August 2004, 
pursuant to the request by India of 26 July 2004, th e Director-General appointed an arbitrator for the 
foregoing arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DS U. On 20 September 2004, the Arbitrator decided 
that the reasonable period of time for impl ementation would expire on 1 July 2005.  
At the DSB meeting on 20 July 2005, the European Communities announced that the special 
arrangements to combat drug produc tion and trafficking of Title IV  of EC Regulation (2501/2001) 
had been repealed as of 1 July 2005 and a new re gulation (980/2005) had been promulgated bringing 
the European Communities into compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings. India 
expressed some doubts as to whether the new EC Regulation faithfully implemented the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings, and it reserved its right to return to this matter in the future, as 
necessary.  
22. WT/DS245 – Japan – Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples 
Complaint by the United States. At the DSB meeting on 9 January 2004, Japan indicated that it 
intended to comply with the recommendations and ru lings of the DSB in a manner that respected its 
WTO obligations under the SPS Agreement. In that conn ection, Japan also stated that it would need a 
reasonable period of time to implement the said recommendations and rulings and was willing to discuss this matter with the United States in accord ance with Article 21.3(b) of the DSU. On 10 
February 2004, Japan and the Un ited States informed the DSB that  they had agreed that the 
reasonable period of time shall be six months and 20 days, that is from 10 December 2003 to 30 June 
2004.  
On 30 June 2004, Japan and the United States sent to the DSB the confirmed procedures between the 
parties under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU.  
Considering that Japan had failed to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings before the 
expiration of the reasonable period of time, on 19 July 2004 the United States requested the DSB to establish a panel under Article 21.5 of the DSU and to authorize suspension of concessions or other 
obligations with respect to Japan under Article 22.2 of the DSU. In respect of the latter, on 29 July 
2004 Japan requested this matter to be referred to arbitration in accordance with Article 22.6 of the 
DSU and the foregoing confirmed procedures. After th e matter was referred to arbitration (which 
would be carried out by the original panel) at the meeting of the DSB on 30 July 2004, both parties jointly requested the Arbitrator to suspend th e arbitration proceeding on 4 August 2004 until adoption 
by the DSB of its recommendations and rulings of the former proceeding, i.e., the panel proceeding 
under Article 21.5 of the DSU.  
In respect of the panel proceeding under Article 21. 5 of the DSU, at its meeting on 30 July 2004 the 
DSB decided to refer the matter raised by the Unite d States to the original panel. Australia, Brazil, 
China, the European Communities, New Zealand and Chinese Taipei reserved their third party rights.  
On 23 June 2005, the Article 21.5 Panel circulated its Report to Members. The Panel report found that 
Japan's phytosanitary measure imposed on imports of apples from the United States is contrary to Articles 2.2 and 5.1 of the SPS Agreement and if the United States only exports mature, symptomless apples, the alternative measure proposed by the United States meets the requirement of Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement. (See also V.B.) On 18 July 2005, the parties to the dispute jointly requested the 
Chairman of Arbitrator to suspend the 22.6 pr oceedings until 31 August 2005. At the DSB meeting on 
30 July 2005, the Panel Report was adopted.  WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 201 
 
 
  On 30 August 2005, the parties to the dispute join tly informed the DSB that they had reached a 
mutually agreed solution regarding the matters raised by the United States in this dispute. 
23. WT/DS238 – Argentina – Definitive Safe guard Measure on Imports of Preserved 
Peaches 
Complaint by Chile. At its meeting on 15 April 200 3, the DSB adopted the Panel Report. On 14 May 
2003, Argentina informed the DSB that it could not  comply with its recommendations immediately 
and thus asked for a reasonable period of time fo r implementation. On 27 June 2003, Argentina and 
Chile informed the DSB that they  had agreed that the reasonable period of time will be 31 December 
2003. 
At its meeting on 23 January 2004, Argentina announced  that the safeguard measure at issue had been 
withdrawn on 31 December 2003 in line with the ag reement reached between  Argentina and Chile 
and thus in its view it had implemented the DSB' s recommendations. Chile welcomed the withdrawal 
of the measure by Argentina.  
24. WT/DS236 – United States – Preliminary De terminations with Respect to Certain 
Softwood Lumber from Canada 
Complaint by Canada. At the DSB meeting of 28 November 2002, the United States said that the 
measures at issue in this dispute were no longer in effect and that the provisional cash deposits that Canada challenged had been refunded prior to the ci rculation of the Panel Report. As such, it was not 
necessary for the US to take any further action to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the 
DSB. Canada dismissed the US view that no act ion was required on its part to implement the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB. Canada stated that the legal methodologies found by the 
Panel to be plainly illegal in the US Prelimin ary Countervailing Duty Determination remained 
unchanged in the Final Determination. 
25. WT/DS231 – European Communities – Trade Description of Sardines 
Complaint by Peru. At the DSB meeting of 11 November 2002, the EC stated that it was working 
towards implementing the rulings and recommendations of the DSB in a manner consistent with its 
obligations under WTO rules, in particular, Artic le 2.4 of the TBT Agreement. However, the EC 
stated that in order to be able to achieve this it would need a reasonable period in which to bring its 
measures into conformity with its obligations under the TBT Agreement, especially given that 
implementation would entail the repeal of a statutory measure. To that end, the EC was willing to 
consult with Peru, pursuant to Article 21.3 of the DSU, in order to achieve agreement on the 
reasonable period of time needed for implementation of the DSB's rulings and recommendations.  
On 19 December 2002, Peru and the EC informed the DSB that they had agreed that the reasonable 
period of time for the EC to implement the recomme ndations and rulings of the DSB, will expire on 
23 April 2003. On 14 April 2003, the parties informed  the DSB that they had reached an agreement to 
extend the reasonable period of time until 1 July 2003.  
26. WT/DS222 – Canada – Export Credits a nd Loan Guarantees for Regional Aircraft 
Complaint by Brazil. At the DSB meeting on 8 Marc h 2002, Canada stated that it was considering its 
options on how best to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.  
On 23 May 2002, on the grounds that Canada had failed to implement the recommendations of the 
DSB within the 90-day time-period granted by the DSB, Brazil requested authorization to suspend WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 202 
 
 
  concessions pursuant to Article 22.2 of the DSU. Brazil proposed that the suspension of concessions 
takes the form of some or all of the following countermeasures:  
• suspension of its obligations under paragraph 6( a) of Article VI of GATT 1994 to determine 
the effect of subsidization under EDC Ca nada Account and EDC Corporate Account 
programmes;  
• suspension of application of obligations unde r the Agreement on Import licencing procedures 
relating to licensing requirement on imports from Canada; and  
• suspension of tariff concessions and relate d obligations under GATT 1994 concerning those 
products in the list attached to Brazil's communication of 23 May 2002.  
At the DSB meeting on 3 June 2002, Brazil and Canada informed the DSB that they had reached an 
agreement in this matter. Under the terms of the ag reement, the parties agreed that it would in no way 
prejudice the right of Brazil to request authori zation to take appropriate countermeasures under 
Article 4.10 of the SCM Agreement and Article 22.2 of  the DSU, nor affect the relevant time periods 
under the DSU.  
At the DSB meeting on 24 June 2002, Brazil stated  that it was requesting authorization to suspend 
concessions for an amount of US$3.36 billion towards Canada as the latter had failed to withdraw its 
prohibited export subsidies within the time-frame sp ecified by the Panel. Canada disputed Brazil's 
right to request authorization from the DSB to suspend concessions. It argued that Brazil had not fulfilled the conditions spelt out in Article 22.2 of  the DSU and as such it could not avail itself of 
Article 22.6 of the DSU. Canada also objected to  the countermeasures proposed by Brazil. The DSB 
referred the matter to arbitration according to Artic le 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM 
Agreement.  
On 17 February 2003, the arbitrator circulated its aw ard. The arbitrator determined that the suspension 
of concessions by Brazil covering trade in a total amount of US$247, 797,000 would constitute 
appropriate countermeasures within the meaning of Article 4.10 of the SCM Agreement. On 6 March 
2003, Brazil requested authorization to suspend concessions or other obligations under Article 22.7 of 
the DSU and Article 4.10 of the SCM Agreemen t. At its meeting on 18 March 2003, the DSB 
authorized the suspension of concessions.  
27. WT/DS219 – European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Malleable Cast Iron 
Tube or Pipe Fittings from Brazil 
Complaint by Brazil. On 18 August 2003 the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel report as modified by the Appellate Body Report. On 15 September 2003, the European Communities 
confirmed in a communication to the DSB its intention to implement the recommendations and 
rulings of the DSB.  
On 1 October 2003, the EC and Brazil informed that DSB that they had agreed that the reasonable period of time for the EC to implement the DSB' s recommendations and rulings would be 7 months; 
i.e. until 19 March 2004.  
On 17 March 2004, the EC informed the DSB that  it had reassessed its findings related to the 
contested measure by taking fully into account the findings and conclusions set out in the Panel and 
Appellate Body Reports, as explained in the Council Regulation (EC) No 436/2004 of 8 March 2004, 
and thus had fully complied with the DSB rulings an d recommendations in this dispute and within the 
deadline agreed upon between the disputing parties.   WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 203 
 
 
  At the DSB meeting on 20 April 2004, Brazil contested the claim by the EC that it had fully 
implemented the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this case. Brazil stated that whereas it 
was true that the EC had recalculated the dumpi ng margin without using the "zeroing" methodology, 
it had not fully implemented the findings of th e Appellate Body relating to the due process 
requirements contained in the Anti-dumping Agreemen t. The EC disputed this claim by Brazil and 
stated that the EC was ready to provide further ex planations to Brazil if that would be helpful and 
make it accept that it had correctly implemented the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.  
28. WT/DS217, WT/DS234 – United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 
Joint complaint by Australia, Brazil, Chile, European Communities, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea 
and Thailand (WT/DS217), and Canada and Mexico (WT/DS234). On 14 March 2003, the 
complainants requested arbitration under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU to determine the reasonable 
period of time for implementation by the US of the DSB recommendations.  
On 24 March 2003, the complainants requested the Director-General to appoint the arbitrator in consultation with the parties pursuant to footnote 12 of the DSU. On 4 April 2003, the Director-
General appointed an Arbitrator. On 13 June 2003, th e Arbitrator issued its award to the parties. The 
Arbitrator concluded that the "reasonable period of time" for the United States to implement the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings should be 11 m onths from the date of the DSB's adoption of the 
Panel and Appellate Body Reports in this dispute. The reasonabl e period of time will therefore expire 
on 27 December 2003.  
On 14 January 2004, the DSB was informed that the United States had mutually agreed to modify the 
reasonable period of time with Thailand, Australia a nd Indonesia, respectively, so as to expire on 27 
December 2004. On 15 January 2004, on the grounds that the US had failed to implement the DSB 
recommendations and rulings within the reasonable pe riod of time, Brazil, Chile, the EC, India, Japan, 
Korea, Canada and Mexico requested the DSB au thorization to suspend concessions pursuant to 
Article 22.2 of the DSU. On 23 January 2004, the US requested, in accordance with Article 22.6 of 
the DSU, that the matter be referred to arbitration, since the US object ed to the level of suspension of 
concessions proposed by the foregoing parties. At its meeting on 26 January 2004, the DSB decided 
to refer the matter to arbitration.  
On 31 August 2004, the arbitrator circulated  its decisions. The arbitrator determined:  
• It rejects the position of Brazil, Canada, Ch ile, the European Communities, India, Japan, 
Korea and Mexico that the level of suspension of concessions or other obligations should be 
equivalent to the disbursements made by the United States under the measure at issue, i.e., CDSOA. The Arbitrator considered that this interpretation was not supported by the terms of 
Article XXIII of GATT 1994 or the DSU. The Ar bitrator found it appropriate to rely on the 
economic effect of the measure, as was done in previous Article 22.6 arbitrations.  
• The Arbitrator applied an economic model aimed at assessing the effect of disbursements 
under the CDSOA on exports of the above-mentione d Members to the United States, and thus 
came up with a coefficient which, multiplied by the amounts disbursed by the United States 
under the CDSOA in relation to anti-dumping or  countervailing duties collected on imports 
from each of the those Members, gives an asse ssment of the economic effect of the CDSOA 
on exports from each of those Members for a given period.  
• The Arbitrators' decisions do not provide for an actual, single value of trade not to be 
exceeded by the above-mentioned Members when suspending concessions or other WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 204 
 
 
  obligations vis-à-vis  the United States. The awards allow those Members to suspend 
concessions or other obligations up to a maxi mum value of trade to be calculated by 
multiplying the published amount of disbursements under the CDSOA for a given year by the 
coefficient calculated by the Arbitrator.  
On 10 November 2004, Brazil, the European Commun ities, India, Japan, Korea, Canada and Mexico 
requested authorization to suspend concessions or ot her obligations under Article 22.7 of the DSU. At 
its meeting of 26 November 2004, the DSB authoriz ed the suspension of concessions. On 6 December 
2004, Chile requested authorization to suspend concessions or other obligations under Article 22.7 of the DSU. At its meeting of 17 December 2004, the DSB authorized the suspension of concessions. On 
23 December 2004, 7 and 11 January 2005, Australia, Thailand and Indonesia, respectively, reached 
Understanding with the United States with respect to this dispute. At its meeting of 25 January 2005, 
the DSB agreed to take note of these Understandings.  
On 29 April 2005, the European Communities and Canada notified the DSB that they were 
suspending, as of 1 May 2005, the application of concessions and related obligations under GATT 
1994 on imports of certain products originating in the United States of America. The notifications 
from the European Communities and Ca nada say that, for the first year, an ad valorem additional duty 
of 15 per cent will be imposed on certain products or iginating in the United States of America, which 
would cover, over one year, a total value of trad e that does not exceed US$ 27.81 million (in respect 
of the European Communities) and US$ 11.16 m illion (in respect of Canada) respectively.  
On 18 August 2005, Japan notified the DSB that they were suspending, as of 1 September 2005, the 
application of concessions and rela ted obligations under GATT 1994 on imports of  certain products 
originating in the United States. The notificatio n from Japan states that, for the first year, an 
ad valorem additional duty of 15 per cent will be  imposed on certain products originating in the 
United States, which would cover, over one year , a total value of trade that does not exceed 
US$ 52.10 million.  
At the DSB meeting on 17 February 2006, the United States stated that the US Congress had 
approved the Deficit Reduction Act on 1 February 2006 and the Preside nt had signed the Act into law 
on 8 February 2006 bringing the US into conformi ty with its WTO obligations.  Australia; Brazil; 
Canada; Chile; Indonesia; Hong Kong, China; In dia; Japan; Korea; Mexico; Thailand and the 
European Communities welcomed the recent steps taken by Congress towards the repeal of the 
CDSOA but disagreed with the United States that it had brought its measures fully into conformity 
with the DSB's recommendations and rulings. 
On 28 April 2006, the European Communities notified the DSB of the new list of products on which 
the additional import duty would apply, prior to the entry into force of a level of suspension of concessions.  On 22 August 2006, Japan notified th e DSB of the new list of products on which the 
additional import duty would apply, prior to the entry into force of a level of suspension of concessions.
 
29. WT/DS213 – United States – Countervailing Duties on Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Germany 
At the DSB meeting on 20 April 2004, the United States informed the DSB that they had fully implemented the DSB's recommendations and ruli ngs on 1 April 2004 by revoking the countervailing 
duty order on corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Germany.   WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 205 
 
 
  30. WT/DS212 – United States – Countervailing Measures Concerning Certain Products 
from the European Communities 
Complaint by the European Communities. At the DSB meeting on 27 January 2003, the US indicated that it intended to comply with the recommenda tions and rulings of the DSB in a manner that 
respected its WTO obligations and that, in that conn ection, it would need a reasonable period of time 
to implement them. The EC urged the US to promptly bring its measures into conformity with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. The EC indicated that, since the principle underlying the findings in this case had been established by the Appellate Body in an earlier case (US – Imposition of countervailing duties on lead and bismuth carbon steel from the UK), and as such the US should by now know what it had to do to bring its measures into conformity with WTO disciplines, the 
reasonable period of time had to be short. On 10 April 2003, the parties notified the DSB that they had 
agreed on a reasonable period of time for implem entation of 10 months (from 8 January 2003 to 8 
November 2003)  
At the DSB meeting on 7 November 2003, the US presen ted its first status report where it stated that 
on 23 June 2003, the US Department of Co mmerce (DOC) published a notice announcing a 
modification of the manner in which the Department would analyze the question of whether a subsidized, government-owned company remained subsidized after it was "privatized"; the DOC had also issued final revised determinations for each of the twelve countervailing determinations that were at issue on 24 October 2003; and as a result of these measures, the US considered that it had brought 
its measures into full conformity with the recommenda tions and rulings of the DSB. The EC said that 
while the amending legislation was to be welcomed, as it established a presumption that a company 
would not be deemed to have benef ited from prior subsidies, if the company had been privatized in an 
arm's length, fair market value transaction, certain el ements of the legislation gave rise to concern; it 
would appear that some of the factors which ha d to be taken into account by the DOC in its 
determination went beyond "govern mental economic and other policies" . The EC further stated that 
while the EC was satisfied with the results of the DOC's re-examination in eight out of the twelve privatization cases, it regretted the decision that an  analysis of privatization was not necessary to 
implement the DSB rulings in the other four cases, and that the EC was evaluating the reasons given 
for such an omission and its consequences on the implementation process. Mexico said that it, as a third-party, was in the process of analyzing whet her the new US measure fully complied with the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB. 
At the DSB meeting on 1 December 2003, the EC reite rated its concerns regarding some aspects of 
the US implementation of the DSB's rulings. In part icular, the EC was concerned with the treatment 
of the four cases where the DOC had refused to examine the nature of the privatizations. He said that 
discussions were ongoing on this matter to explore th e possibility for a mutually acceptable solution. 
However, the EC reserved its right to initiate compliance proceedings. The US said that it had complied with the DSB's recommendati ons in this case. The US was di sappointed to hear that the EC 
had some concerns regarding certain aspects of the revised determinations and was ready to discuss 
with the EC possible approaches to these concerns . Brazil said that its companies suffered commercial 
damages as a result of the US methodology, which was WTO-inconsistent.  
On 17 March 2004, the EC, considering that the me asures taken by the US to comply with its WTO 
obligations were unsatisfactory, requested the US to  enter into consultations under Articles 4 and 21.5 
of the DSU and Article 30 of the SCM Agreement.  On 16 September 2004, pursuant to Articles 6 and 
21.5 of the DSU, Article 30 of the SCM Agre ement and Article XXIII of GATT 1994, the EC 
requested that the panel be established, as it disagree s with the US as to the existence or consistency 
with a covered agreement of measures taken to co mply with the recommendations and rulings of the 
DSB. At its meeting of 27 September 2004, the DS B established the panel. Brazil, Korea and China 
reserved their rights as third parties. On 8 October 2004, the Panel was composed.  WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 206 
 
 
  0n 17 August 2005, the Panel Report was circulated to Members. In the Panel Report, the European 
Communities prevailed only on its claims regarding (i) the US failu re to examine the privatizations of 
BS plc (UK) and Aceralia (Spain); and (ii) the treatment of new evidence in the UK Section 129 
proceedings.  All other EC claims were either dismissed or rejected.   
On 27 September 2005, the Panel Report was adopted  by the DSB. On 17 November 2005, the United 
States submitted its first status report.  
31. WT/DS211 – Egypt – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Steel Rebar from Turkey 
Complaint by Turkey. On 14 November 2002, Egypt and Turkey informed the Chairman of the 
Dispute Settlement Body, that they had mutually  agreed that the reasonable period of time to 
implement the recommendations and rulings of DSB should not be more than nine months, that is 
from 1 November 2002 until 31 July 2003. 
32. WT/DS207 – Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard Measures Relating to Certain 
Agricultural Products 
Complaint by Argentina. At the DSB meeting of 11 November 2002, Chile stated that it intended to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. To that end, Chile was engaged in 
consultations with Argentina to find a mutually satisfactory solution to the dispute. Chile further stated that it would need a reasonable period of tim e to bring its measures into conformity with the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB. On 6 Decemb er 2002, Chile informed the DSB, that to date 
Chile and Argentina had been unable to agree on th e length of the reasonable period of time and thus 
Chile was requesting that the determination of the re asonable period of time be the subject of binding 
arbitration in accordance with Article 21.3(c) of  the DSU. On 16 December 2002, Argentina and 
Chile informed the DSB that they have agreed to  postpone the deadline for the binding arbitration 
which would now be completed no la ter than 90 days from the appointment of the arbitrator (instead 
of 90 days from the date of adoption of the rulings and recommendations of the DSB). Also on 16 December 2002, Argentina and Chile requested Mr. John Lockhart, Member of the Appellate Body, to act as arbitrator for the purposes of Article 21.3( c) of the DSU. On 17 December 2002, Mr. John 
Lockhart accepted the appointment of arbitrator.  
On 17 March 2003, the arbitrator circulated its awar d. The Arbitrator concluded that the "reasonable 
period of time" that should be ex tended to Chile to implement the recommendations and rulings of the 
DSB in this dispute was 14 months (23 December 2003). 
 At the DSB meeting on 2 October 2003, Chile stat ed that on 25 September 2003 Law No 19.897 to 
establish a new price band system had been pr omulgated replacing Law No 18.525. The new Law 
would come into force on 16 December 2003: i.e. prior to the expiry of the reasonable period of time 
for compliance. Argentina raised detailed ques tions concerning the new Law. Chile noted the 
statement by Argentina and requested that Argen tina make its questions available in writing.  
At the DSB meeting on 7 November 2003, Chile stat ed that Law No 19.897 was scheduled to come 
into force on 16 December 2003: i.e. prior to th e expiry of the reasonable period of time for 
compliance, and that, with this new law, Chile  had complied with the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings. Argentina stated that the new system di d not comply fully with the recommendations and 
rulings of the DSB, as it retained most of the essential features of the previous system; and it was still 
waiting for the responses to its questions concerning the new price band system. Argentina also stated that, given the close relationship between the Chile and Argentina, it was still willing to explore the possibility of reaching a mutually satis factory solution to this dispute.   WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 207 
 
 
  At the DSB meeting on 1 December 2003, Chile said that it had already adopted a number of 
measures to comply with the DSB's recommendations, as stated previously. Argentina reiterated its view that the measures taken by Chile to comply  with the recommendations did not constitute the 
implementation in this case since the price band system would continue to be maintained. Argentina considered that it would be appropriate for the parties to enter into negotiations on compensation 
before the expiry of the deadline for implementation. Brazil said th at it also considered that the 
measures taken for compliance by Chile were still not consistent with the provisions of the Agreement 
on Agriculture.  
On 24 December 2003, Argentina and Chile inform ed the DSB that they had agreed on certain 
procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU.  
At the DSB meeting on 23 January 2004, Chile and Argentina noted that they had concluded a 
bilateral agreement regarding the procedures under Ar ticles 21.5 and 22 of the DSU. In this regard, 
Chile noted that the issue of sequencing between Articles 21.5 and 22 required a multilateral solution 
since ad hoc agreements only applied to specific disputes. Argentina noted that the parties would 
shortly enter into consultations re garding the implementation issues.  
On 19 May 2004, Argentina requested consultations w ith Chile under Article 21.5 of the DSU.  On 29 
December 2005, Argentina requested the establishment of a panel under Article 21.5 of the DSU.  At 
its meeting on 20 January 2006, the DSB agreed, if po ssible, to refer the matter raised by Argentina to 
the original panel. 
33. WT/DS206 – United States – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Measures on Steel Plate from India 
Complaint by India. On 1 October 2002 the United States and India informed the DSB that pursuant to Article 21.3(b) of the DSU they have mutually  agreed that the reasonable period of time to 
implement the DSB recommendations and rulings in this  dispute shall be five months, i.e., form 29 
July 2002 to 29 December 2002. On 17 January 2003,  the parties informed the DSB that they had 
mutually agreed to modify the reasonable period of time for implementation so as to expire on 31 
January 2003.  
On 14 February 2003, the parties informed the DS B that they had agreed on certain procedures under 
Article 21 and 22 of the DSU. Pursuant to these agr eed procedures, if India requests the establishment 
of a 21.5 compliance panel, the US will not oppose it.  India agrees not to request the authorisation to 
suspend concessions under Article 22 until the adoption of the compliance reports (Panel and AB, if 
any) and the US agrees not to assert that India is  precluded from doing so given that the request would 
be made outside the 30 day period.  
34. WT/DS204 – Mexico – Measures Affecting Telecommunications Services 
Complaint by the United States. On 1 June 2004, Me xico and the United Stated reached an agreement 
on the former's compliance with the recommendations of the panel report. The agreement states that a 
reasonable period of time to comply with the reco mmendations of the Report is 13 months. At the 
DSB meeting on 31 August 2005, Mexico announced  that on 12 August 2005, it had published its 
new resale regulations allowing for the commercia l resale of long distance and international long 
distance services originating in Mexico and thus, w ith these changes, it had fully complied with the 
DSB's recommendations.  The United States expressed its satisfaction with the changes introduced by Mexico.  WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 208 
 
 
  35. WT/DS202 – United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures On Imports Of Circular 
Welded Carbon Quality Line Pipe From Korea 
Complaint by Korea. At the DSB meeting on 5 April 2002, the US expressed its intention to implement the DSB's recommendations and indicated that it would enter into consultations with 
Korea to determine a reasonable period of time fo r implementation. At the DSB meeting on 17 April 
2002, Korea expressed concern about the lack of any proposal from the US regarding a reasonable period of time for compliance. The US stated that they would be proposin g a reasonable period of 
time as soon as possible. On 29 April 2002, Korea requested the DSB that the "reasonable period of time" be determined by binding arbitration pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU. On 13 May 2002, 
Korea requested the Director-General to appoint an arbitrator. On 23 May 2002, the Director-General 
appointed an arbitrator. The issuance of the award was scheduled for 12 July 2002. By joint letter of 
12 July 2002, the parties requested the Arbitrator to  delay the issuance of the award until 22 July 2002 
in order to allow time for additional bilateral negotiations between the parties. The arbitrator acceded to the request. Additional joint requests for delay were received on 19 and 22 July 2002, wherein the 
parties requested that the award, pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, be delayed until 24 July 2002 
and 26 July 2002, respectively. The Arbitrator agr eed also to these additional requests. By letters 
dated 24 July 2002, the parties informed the Arb itrator that they had reached agreement on the 
reasonable period of time for compliance in this matt er. Accordingly, the Arbitrator did not issue his 
award and, instead, issued a Report setting out th e procedural history of this arbitration.  
At the DSB meeting on 18 March 2003, the US informed that its safeguard measure on line pipe from Korea had been terminated on 1 March 2003.  
36. WT/DS192 – United States – Transitional Sa feguard Measure on Combed Cotton Yarn 
from Pakistan 
Complaint by Pakistan. At the DSB meeting of 21 November 2001, the US declared that on 8 November 2001 the Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreement had directed the US 
Customs Services to eliminate the limit on imports of combed cotton yarn from Pakistan. The US 
indicated that, through this action, effective fro m 9 November 2001, it had implemented the DSB's 
recommendations. 
37. WT/DS189 – Argentina – Definitive Anti-D umping Measures on Carton-Board Imports 
from Germany and Definitive Anti-Dumping  Measures on Imports of Ceramic Tiles 
from Italy 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 20 December 2001, the EC and Argentina informed the 
DSB that they have mutually agreed a reasonabl e period of time of 5 months to implement the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB, i. e. from 5 November 2001 until 5 April 2002.  
At the DSB meeting of 22 May 2002, Argentina announced that on 24 April 2002, the Ministry of 
Production had enacted Resolution 76/02 revoking th e anti-dumping measures at issue in this case. 
With the publication of this Resolution, Argentin a considered that it had now fully implemented the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dis pute. The EC welcomed Argentina's prompt 
implementation in this case.  
38. WT/DS184 – United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel 
Products from Japan 
Complaint by Japan. On 20 November 2001, Japan re quested that the reasonable period of time for 
implementation of the DSB's recommendations be determined by binding arbitration under  WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 209 
 
 
  Article 21.3(c) of the DSU. Pending the appointment of the arbitrator, Japan and the US agreed to 
extend the time-period under that provision. They agreed that the award of the arbitrator is to be made 
no later than 19 February 2002. On 19 February 2 002, the arbitrator circulated his award. The 
arbitrator concluded that the reasonable period of time for implementation by the United States of the 
DSB's recommendations was 15 months from 23 August 20 01. Accordingly, this period will expire on 
23 November 2002.  
At the DSB meeting on 1 October 2002, the US presented its status report regarding the implementation of the recommendations and rulings  of the DSB. The US stated that the US 
Administration had started taking steps to comply w ith the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. 
To that end, the US Department of Commerce had pu blished a proposed change to its "arm's length" 
test with a view to complying with the recommenda tions and rulings of the DSB. The US would apply 
this test to the hot-steel products which were the s ubject matter of the dispute. The US confirmed that 
this test would be applied in future anti-dumpi ng proceedings initiated by the US. Regarding the 
statutory aspects of this dispute, the US stated that the Administration was consulting with Congress with a view to determining which measures might be  required to achieve a solution to the dispute.  
Japan expressed its concerns that the US might not be able to fulfil its obligations by the expiry of the 
reasonable period of time. It stated that while the status report submitted by the US indicated that the 
DOC and Congress were taking steps to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB, the report did not disclose anything in relation to the International Trade Commission, whose application of the relevant US law was found to be  inconsistent with the US obligations under the 
WTO. Japan urged the US to bring its measur es into compliance with the recommendations and 
rulings of the DSB and stated that Japan would m onitor all aspects of US implementation of the DSB 
recommendations and rulings. The EC urged the US to implement promptly the recommendations and 
rulings of the DSB. 
At the DSB meeting on 11 November 2002, the US submitted a status report stating that the US 
Department of Commerce had published a proposed change to its "arm's length" test with a view to 
complying with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. He said that the US would apply this 
test to the hot-steel products which were the subject matter of this dispute. The US confirmed that this 
test would be applied in future anti-dumping proceedings initiated by the US. Regarding the statutory aspects of this dispute, he said that the Admini stration was working with Congress with a view to 
finding a solution to this dispute. Japan stated that the reasonable period of time for the implementation of the recommenda tions and rulings of the DSB would expire on 23 November 2002 
and Japan was concerned that the United States might not  be able to fulfil its obligations by that time. 
He said that while the status report submitted by th e US indicated that the Department of Commerce 
and Congress were taking steps to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB, it did not disclose anything in relation to the Interna tional Trade Commission, whose application of the 
relevant US law was found to be inconsistent with the obligations of the United States under the WTO 
Agreement. He urged the US to bring its measu res into compliance with the recommendations and 
rulings of the DSB, and said that Japan would be entitled after the expiration of the reasonable period 
of time to request authorization to suspend concessions  or other obligations pursuant to Article 22.2 of 
the DSU.  
On 22 November 2002, the US requested the DSB to  modify the reasonable period of time. The US 
proposed that the reasonable period of time be modified so as to expire on 31 December 2003, or on 
the date on which the first session of the next US  Congress adjourns, whichever was earlier. The US 
believed that such an extension of time would promote a principal aim of the dispute settlement 
system, which is to provide mutually satisfactory solutions to disputes.  WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 210 
 
 
  At the DSB meeting of 28 November 2002, the US stated that the DOC had issued a new final 
determination in the hot-rolled steel anti-dumpi ng duty investigation, which implemented the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB with respect to the calculation of anti-dumping margins in 
that investigation. Regarding the recommendations and rulings of the DSB with respect to the US 
anti-dumping statute, the US stated that the US Ad ministration was continuing to consult and to work 
with the US Congress with a view to resolving this dispute in a mutually satisfactory manner. To that 
end, the US was consulting with Japan and had soug ht its agreement to extend the reasonable period 
of time in this case to 31 December 2003 or the end of the first session of the next Congress, whichever is earlier. Japan expressed disappointment about the failure of the US to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB within the reasonable period of time, and said that the lack 
of implementation compromised the credibility of the dispute settlement mechanism. Japan further 
stated that whilst it would probably agree to an exte nsion of the reasonable period of time, it expected 
the US to bring its measures into compliance as soon as practicable. Japan also reserved its right to take appropriate action in the event of non-compliance again by the US.  
At its meeting on 5 December 2002, the DSB agreed to the request by the US for an extension of the 
reasonable period of time for the implementation of  the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in 
this dispute. At the DSB meeting on 27 January 2003, the US submitted a status report where it 
recalled his earlier statement concerning the issuan ce of a new final determin ation in the hot-rolled 
steel antidumping duty investigation by the Depart ment of Commerce which, according to the US, 
implemented the recommendations and rulings of the DSB with respect to the calculation of anti-
dumping margins in that investigation. Regarding the recommendations and rulings of the DSB with 
respect to the US anti-dumping statute, the US said that its Administration would work with the new Congress with a view to finding a satisfactory solution to the dispute. Japan expressed disappointment about the failure of the US to implement the r ecommendations and rulings of the DSB within the 
reasonable period of time, and said that the lack of implementation compromised the credibility of the 
dispute settlement mechanism. Japan  urged the US Administration to intensify its efforts and work 
with the new Congress to implement as promptly as possible the recommendations and rulings of the 
DSB.  
At its meeting on 2 October 2003, the US presented its st atus report and stated that with respect to the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings on the US an ti-dumping statute, the US administration would 
continue to consult and to work with Congress with a view to resolving this matter. In this regard, the 
US stated that the US administration was supporti ng the passage of specific amendments to the US 
anti-dumping duty law that would implement these re commendations and rulings. Japan noted that the 
US status report and its statement did not cont ain a concrete explanation of its plan for 
implementation. Japan urged the United States to implement the DSB's recommendations before the 
end of the first session of the 108th Congress and to consult with Japan in an urgent and detailed 
manner on how and when it intended to implement the recommendations.  
At the DSB meeting on 7 November 2003, the US stated that with respect to the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings on the US anti-dumping statute, the US administration was supporting the passage of specific amendments to the US anti-dumping duty law in order to bring it into conformity with the DSB's recommendations and rulings. Japan said that the extended reasonable 
period of time for the implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings agreed to by the parties was about to expire, yet the necessary stat utory changes had not been introduced in the US 
Congress which was about to go on recess very soon. Jap an also suggested that it would be helpful if 
the US consulted Japan on how it intended to implement the recommendations. On 21 November, 
2003, the US notified the Chairman of the DSB that it proposed that the reasonable period of time for implementation of the recommendations and rulings of  the DSB be modified so as to expire on 31 
July 2004, and that it was consulting with Japan  regarding this proposal. At its meeting on 10 
December 2003, the DSB agreed to the request by the US for an extension of the reasonable period of  WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 211 
 
 
  time for the implementation of the recommendations a nd rulings of the DSB. On 30 July 2004, the US 
notified the Chairman of the DSB that it pro posed that the reasonable period of time for 
implementation of the recommendations and rulings of  the DSB be modified so as to expire on 31 
July 2005, and that it had consulted with Japan re garding this proposal. At its meeting on 31 August 
2004, the DSB agreed to the request  by the US for an extension of the reasonable period of time for 
the implementation of the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.  
On 7 July 2005, the parties to the dispute informed  the DSB of an Understanding that Japan retains its 
right to be granted DSB authorization to susp end concessions or other obligations pursuant to 
Article 22.6 of the DSU at any future date and the United States will not seek to block Japan’s request 
for DSB authorization on the grounds that such DSB action would not be within the time period set 
out in the first sentence of Article 22.6 of the DSU. 
39. WT/DS179 – United States – Anti-Dumping measures on Stainless Steel Plate in Coils 
and Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from Korea 
Complaint by Korea At the DSB meeting of 1 March 2001, the US stated its intention to implement 
the DSB's recommendations and indicated that it would need a reasonable period of time to do so. on 
26 April 2001, the parties to the dispute notified th e DSB that they had mutually agreed that the 
reasonable period of time shall be 7 months a nd shall thus expire on 1 September 2001.  
At the DSB's meeting of 10 September 2001, the US announced that it had implemented the DSB's 
recommendation on 1 September 2001. At that meet ing, Korea acknowledged the implementation.  
40. WT/DS177, WT/DS178 – United States – Sa feguard Measure on Imports of Fresh, 
Chilled or Frozen Lamb from New Zealand 
Complaints by New Zealand and Australia. At the DS B meeting of 20 June 2001, the US recalled that 
on 14 June 2001 it had submitted in writing to the DSB its intentions with respect to the 
implementation in this case and said that it intende d to implement the DSB's recommendations in a 
manner that would respect its WTO obligations. The US further stated that it would need a reasonable period of time for implementation and, for that reason, it would enter into discussions with the 
complaining parties. On 27 September 2001, the US informed the DSB of its decision to implement 
the recommendations of the DSB by ending the safeguard measure effective on 15 November 2001. On 28 September 2001, Australia and New Zealand agreed that the reasonable period of time for implementation would expire on 15 November 2001. 
41. WT/DS176 – United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998 
Complaint by the European Communities and its memb er States. At the DSB meeting on 19 February 
2002, the US stated that it needed a reasonable period of time to comply with the rulings and recommendations of the DSB. On 28 March 2002, the US and the EC informed the DSB that they have reached a mutual agreement on the reasonabl e period of time for the US to implement the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB. The reaso nable period of time will expire on 31 December 
2002, or on the date on which the current session of  the US Congress adjourns, and in no event later 
than 3 January 2003.  
At the DSB meeting on 1 October 2002, the US presented its status report regarding the implementation of the DSB's recommendations and ru lings. The US referred to the mutually agreed 
reasonable period of time. It also stated that th e US Administration was consulting with the Congress 
to determine the appropriate statutory measures needed to be taken to resolve the dispute. Both the EC WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 212 
 
 
  and Cuba expressed their expectation that a solu tion would be found within the agreed reasonable 
period of time.  
At the DSB meeting on 28 November 2002, the US pr esented a status report where it said that the 
reasonable period of time for the implementation of the recommendations and rulings of the DSB 
would expire on 31 December 2002, or on the date on which the current session of the US Congress 
adjourned, whichever was later, a nd in no event later than 3 January 2003. He further stated that the 
US Administration was working with the US Congress w ith a view to resolving this dispute. The EC 
said that the EC was open to all solutions that woul d favour compliance by the US with its obligations 
under the WTO Agreement. While the EC expected to find a mutually satisfactory solution to the 
dispute with the US, it was concerned about recen t pronouncements by the US Administration that 
there was no need to clarify that Section 211 di d not apply in cases where the trademark had been 
abandoned by the original owner. He recalle d that during the Panel proceedings, the US 
representatives gave assurances, which were accepted by the Panel, that Section 211 would not apply 
to a new trademark after a former trademark, to which the Section might have applied, had been 
abandoned. He further noted that the US Federal C ourts had taken a contrary  view and had applied 
Section 211 to trademarks succeeding abandoned trad emarks. Given the uncertainty, it was imperative 
for any solution to this dispute to specifically address the issue of the abandonment of trademarks. 
Cuba urged the United States to bring its measure s into conformity with the recommendations and 
rulings of the DSB within the reasonable peri od of time that it had agreed with the EC.  
At the DSB meeting on 28 November 2002, the US submitted a status report indicating that the US Congress would convene early 2003 and that the US Ad ministration would continue to engage the US 
Congress with a view to finding a solution to this dispute. The EC noted that the US status report was too brief and did not shed light on the steps be ing taken by the US to bring its measures into 
conformity with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. The EC urged the US to stand by the 
affirmations it expressly made during the Panel proc eedings and which were relied upon by the Panel. 
It was necessary for it to be clarified that Section 211 did not apply to a new trademark after a former 
trademark, to which Section 211 might have applied, had been abandoned. Cuba urged the US to bring its measures into conformity with the reco mmendations and rulings of the DSB within the 
reasonable period of time that it had agreed with the EC.  
On 20 December 2002, the EC and the US informed the DSB that they had mutually agreed to modify the reasonable period of time for the US to implem ent the recommendations and rulings of the DSB, 
so as to expire on 30 June 2003. At the DSB mee ting on 27 January 2003, the US submitted its status 
report and indicated that US Administration was inte nt on working with the new Congress in order to 
find a solution to this dispute. The EC indicated that, given the extension of the reasonable period, it expected that the US Administration would work  diligently with the new Congress to bring its 
measures into conformity by the new deadline. Cuba strongly urged the US to implement the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB within the reasonable period of time that it had agreed with 
the EC.  
On 30 June 2003, the EC and the US informed the DS B that they had mutually agreed to modify the 
reasonable period of time for the US to implement th e recommendations and rulings of the DSB, so as 
to expire on 31 December 2003.  
At the DSB meeting on 2 October 2003, the US presented its status report noting that there is a bill pending in the US House of Representatives that w ould, among others, repeal  Section 211. The US 
administration would continue to work with the US Congress with respect to appropriate statutory 
measures that would resolve this dispute. The EC welcomed the introduction of a bill in June 2003 in the US Congress that would, inter alia, repeal Sec tion 211. The EC hoped that this repeal, which was  WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 213 
 
 
  part of a whole scheme of measures to ensure ad equate protection of inte llectual property rights, 
would offer a solution to this dispute to the benefit of all.  
At the DSB meeting on 7 November 2003, the US said that the US administration would continue to 
work closely with the US Congress on appropriate stat utory measures to resolve this dispute. The EC 
welcomed the introduction of the bill in the US Congress in June 2003. Cuba  expressed concern about 
the lack of implementation by the US and urged it to promptly bring its measures into conformity with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB as soon as possible.  
At the DSB meeting on 1 December 2003, the US repeated its previous status report. The EC noted that the deadline for implementation in this case would expire by the end of December 2003. Cuba reiterated it concern.  
On 19 December 2003, the EC and the US informed the DSB that they had mutually agreed to modify the reasonable period of time for implementation of  the DSB recommendations and rulings so as to 
expire on 31 December 2004. On 17 December 2004, the EC and the US informed the DSB that they 
had mutually agreed to modify the reasonabl e period of time for implementation of the DSB 
recommendations and rulings so as to expire on 30 June 2005.  
42. WT/DS174, WT/DS290 – European Communi ties – Protection of Trademarks and 
Geographical Indications for Agricu ltural Products and Foodstuffs 
Complaint by the United States (DS174) and Aust ralia (DS290). At the DSB meeting of 19 May 
2005, the European Communities stat ed its intention to implement the DSB's recommendations and 
indicated that it would need a reasonable period of time to do so. On 9 June 2005, the European Communities, Australia and the United States inform ed the DSB that they had agreed pursuant to 
Article 21.3(b) of the DSU that the reasonable pe riod of time for implementation shall be 11 months 
and 2 weeks, expiring on 3 April 2006.   
At the DSB meeting on 17 February 2006, the Euro pean Communities said that a new regulation on 
geographical indications which would fully impl ement the DSB's recommenda tions and rulings was 
being discussed in the Council of th e European Union and the European  Parliament.  It was expected 
that the Commission's proposal would be adopted within the agreed reasonable period of time. 
At the DSB meeting on 21 April 2006, the Eur opean Communities said that they had fully 
implemented the DSB's recommendations and rulings  by adopting a new regulation which entered 
into force on 31 March 2006.  Australia and the United States disagreed  that the European 
Communities had fully implemented the DSB's recommendations and rulings and invited the 
European Communities to take account of their comments and revise the newly promulgated 
regulation.  
43. WT/DS170 – Canada – Term of Patent Protection 
Complaint by the United States. At the DSB meeting of  23 October 2000, Canada stated that it was its 
intention to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings. Canada said that it would require a 
reasonable period of time for implementation and that  it would consult with the United States on this 
matter. On 15 December 2000, the US request ed that the reasonable period of time for 
implementation by Canada be dete rmined by binding arbitration pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the 
DSU. The arbitrator circulated his report on 28 February 2001. He decided that the reasonable period 
of time in this case was 10 months and was thus to expire on 12 August 2001. WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 214 
 
 
  44. WT/DS166 – United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Wheat 
Gluten from the European Communities 
Complaint by the European Communities. At th e DSB meeting of 16 February 2001, the US 
announced that it intended to implement the recomme ndations and rulings contained in the panel and 
Appellate Body reports. On 20 Ma rch 2001, the EC requested that the reasonable period of time for 
implementation be determined by binding arbitration pursuant to Article 21.3(c) DSU. On 10 April 
2001, the parties to the dispute notified the DSB that  they had mutually agreed that the reasonable 
period of time shall be four months and 14 days , that is from 19 January 2001 to 2 June 2001. 
45. WT/DS161, WT/DS169 – Korea – Measures A ffecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled and 
Frozen Beef 
Complaints by the United States and Australia. At  the DSB meeting of 2 February 2001, Korea 
announced that it had already implemented some elem ents of the DSB's recommendations and that in 
order to complete the process it would need a reas onable period of time. On 19 April 2001, the parties 
to the dispute notified the DSB that they had mutually agreed that the reasonable period of time shall be 8 months, and was thus to expire on 10 September 2001.  
At the DSB meeting on 25 September 2001, Korea announced that it had implemented the DSB's recommendation by the deadline, i.e. 10 September. The US indicated that it will continue to work 
with Korea to ensure that the replacement measure s resulted in full market access for US beef.  
46. WT/DS160 – United States – Section 110(5) of US Copyright Act 
Complaint by the European Communities. Pursuant to  Article 21.3 of the DSU, the US informed the 
DSB on 24 August 2000 that it would implement the recommendations of the DSB. The US proposed 
15 months as a reasonable period of time within which to implement those recommendations. On 23 
October 2000, the EC requested that the reasonable period of time for implementation be determined 
by means of binding arbitration as provided for in Article 21.3 (c) DSU. The Arbitrator circulated his Award on 15 January 2001. The Arbitrator determined that the reasonable period of time for the US to 
implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this case is 12 months from the date of the 
adoption of the panel report. At its meeting of 24 July 2001, the DSB agreed to the US proposal to extend the reasonable period of time until 31 December  2001 or the end of the current session of the 
US Congress, whichever earlier. This exte nsion had been agreed with the EC.  
On 23 July 2001, the US and the EC notified the DSB of their agreement to pursue arbitration pursuant to Article 25.2 of the DSU in order to dete rmine the level of nullification or impairment of 
benefits to the EC as result of Section 110(5)(B) of the US Copyright Act. On 9 November 2001, the 
arbitrator determined that the level of EC benefits  which were being nullified or impaired as a result 
of the operation of Section 110(5)(B) amounted to Euro 1,219,900 per year. 
 At the DSB meeting on 18 December 2001, the US indicated that it was engaged in productive 
discussions with the EC with a view to resolving the dispute before the end of the expiry of the 
reasonable period of time. The EC underlined that the resolution of the dispute required an 
amendment of the WTO-inconsistent legislation. The EC stated that if it was not possible to conclude 
any arrangements before the end of  the reasonable period of time, it would have to seek the DSB's 
authorization to suspend concessions or other obligations under Article 22.2 of the DSU. On 7 
January 2002, on the grounds that that the US had fa iled to bring its measures into conformity within 
the reasonable period of time, the EC requested authorisation to suspend concessions pursuant to 
Article 22.2 of the DSU. The EC proposed to suspend concessions under the TRIPs Agreement in order to permit the levying of a special fee from US nationals in connectio n with border measures  WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 215 
 
 
  concerning copyright goods. On 17 January 2002, the US objected to the level of suspension of 
obligations proposed by the EC and requested the DSB to refer the matte r to arbitration, in accordance 
with Article 22.6 of the DSU. The US claimed that  the principles and procedures of Article 22.3 had 
not been followed. During the DSB meeting on 18 January 2002, the parties indicated, however, that they were engaged in constructive negotiations a nd were hopeful of finding a mutually satisfactory 
solution. On 25 February 2002, the US submitted a st atus report regarding implementation of the DSB 
recommendations and rulings. On 26 February 2002, th e parties requested the arbitrator to suspend 
the arbitration proceeding, while noting that the pro ceeding may be reactivated at the request of either 
party after 1 March 2002.  
At the DSB meeting on 17 April 2002, the US presented a status report on its progress in 
implementing the DSB's recommendations and rulings. The US indicated that it was engaged in discussions with the EC to find a positive and mutually acceptable solution to the dispute. The EC expressed its concern about the US' slow progress in implementation and requested the US to provide 
more information in its next status report. Austra lia also expressed its c oncern about the delay and 
requested that any compensatory arrangement between the parties must be applied on a non-
discriminatory basis.  
At the DSB meeting on 24 June 2002, the US presented a status report on its progress in 
implementing the DSB's recommendations. The US stated that the US Administration was engaged in discussions with Congress and the EC in order to  reach a mutually acceptable resolution to the 
dispute. The EC acknowledged the efforts being under taken by the US Administration, but underlined 
the importance of the US to bring its measures into  conformity with its ob ligations under the TRIPS 
Agreement. Australia reiterated its concern a bout the delay by the US in implementing the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB and requested again that any compensatory arrangement reached between the parties must be applied on a non-discriminatory basis. At the DSB meeting on 29 
July 2002, the US reiterated its previous statem ent. The EC acknowledged the efforts being made by 
the US Administration, but expressed concern about the significant delay in the implementation of the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB. He inquired whether it would be possible for Congress to 
take action very soon considering the summer recess and legislative elections scheduled to take place 
in the fall.  
At the DSB meeting on 1 October 2002, the US presented its status report regarding the implementation of the DSB's recommendations and ruli ngs. At that meeting, the US stated that its 
administration was engaged in discussion with Congress and the EC to find a mutually acceptable 
solution. The EC inquired about the prospects of a solution in the short run. Australia stated that since 
its views were well-known it did not wish to repeat tho se. It also indicated that it had made a proposal 
in the context of the DSU negotiations to deal with its concerns.  
At the DSB meetings on 11 November 2002, 28 N ovember 2002 and 27 January 2003, the US 
presented status reports where it stated that the US and the EC were committed to finding a positive 
and mutually acceptable solution to the dispute and that the US Administration would continue to 
engage the US Congress following the Congressional recess with a view to settling this dispute as soon as practicable. The EC expressed disappointment w ith the lack of implementation by the US and 
urged the US to take rapid and conc rete action to settle this dispute. 
On 23 June 2003, the US and the EC informed the DSB of a mutually satisfactory temporary 
arrangement.  WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 216 
 
 
  47. WT/DS156 – Guatemala – Definitive Anti-Dum ping Measure on Grey Portland Cement 
from Mexico 
Complaint by Mexico. At the DSB meeting of 12 December 2000, in accordance with Article 21.3 of 
the DSU, Guatemala informed the DSB that in October 2000 it had removed its anti-dumping 
measure and had thus complied with the DSB's recommendations. Mexico welcomed Guatemala's 
implementation in this case. 
48. WT/DS155 – Argentina – Measures Affectin g the Export of Bovine Hides and the 
Import of Finished Leather 
Complaint by the European Commun ities. At the DSB meeting of 12 March 2001, Argentina stated its 
intention to implement the DSB's recommendations and indicated that it would need a reasonable 
period of time to do so. On 14 May 2001, the EC requested that the reasonable period of time be 
determined through binding arbitration pursuant to Article 21.3(c). On 31 August 2001, the Arbitrator 
circulated its award whereby the reasonable period of time was fixed at 12 months and 12 days from 16 February 2001. This period was theref ore to expire on 28 February 2002.  
In view of the concrete action undertaken by Argentina to comply with the DSB recommendations 
and rulings during the reasonable period of time in th is dispute, and in light of the economic problems 
that Argentina is currently facing, the parties ag reed on the following procedures: the parties would 
pursue their discussions on compliance by Argentina with the DSB recommendations and rulings; and 
the EC would retain the right to make a request for authorization to suspend concessions or other 
obligations under the DSU at any time after the expi ry of the reasonable period of time, but only after 
completion of proceedings under Article 21.5 DSU. On 25 February 2002, the parties requested the DSB to circulate their agreement on procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU. On 8 March 
2002, the parties notified the DSB of their agreement.  
49. WT/DS146, WT/DS175 – India – Measures Affecting the Automotive Sector 
Complaints by the European Communities (WT/ DS146) and the United States (WT/DS175). On 2 
May 2002, India informed the DSB that it would need a reasonable period of time to implement the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB and that it was ready to enter into discussions with the EC 
and the US in this regard. 
On 18 July 2002, the parties informed the DSB that  they had mutually agreed that the reasonable 
period of time to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB, shall be five months, that is 
from 5 April 2002 to 5 September 2002. 
On 6 November 2002, India informed the DSB that  it had fully complied with the recommendations 
of the DSB in this dispute by issuing Public Notice No. 31 on 19 August 2002 terminating the trade balancing requirement. India also informed that ear lier it had removed the indigenisation requirement 
vide Public Notice No. 30 on 4 September 2001.  
50. WT/DS141 – European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Cotton-type Bed Linen from India 
Complaint by India. At the DSB meeting of 5 April 2001, the EC announced its intention to implement the DSB's recommendations in this case and said that it would need a reasonable period of time to do so. India said that the EC could complete its implementation process within a very short period of time. On 26 April 2001, the parties to the dispute notified the DSB that they had mutually  WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 217 
 
 
  agreed that the reasonable period of time shall be five months and two days, that is from 12 March 
2001 until 14 August 2001.  
The EC amended its regulation imposing a definitiv e anti-dumping duty on imports of cotton-type bed 
linen originating in Egypt, India and Pakistan and suspending its application with regard to imports 
originating in India by the deadline of 14 August 200 1. However, India, at the 23 August meeting of 
the DSB, made a statement whereby it expressed the view that the new EC Regulation did not bring 
the EC legislation into full complia nce with the DSB's recommendations.  
On 13 September 2001, India and the EC informed the DSB that they had reached an understanding 
regarding the procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of  the DSU. This understanding foresees that if on 
the basis of the results of proceedings under Article 21.5 that might be initiated by India, India decides 
to initiate proceedings under Article 22, the EC w ould not assert that India is precluded from doing so 
because its request was made outside the 30 day time-period.  
On 8 March 2002, India sought recourse to Article 21. 5 of the DSU (request for consultations), stating 
that there was disagreement as to the existence or consistency with a covered agreement of measures 
taken to comply with the recommendations and rulings. On 4 April 2002, India requested the 
establishment of a compliance panel. At the DSB me eting on 17 April 2002, India informed the DSB 
that pursuant to an understanding reached between th e EC and India, it was requesting the withdrawal 
of the item from the agenda in accordance with Ru le 6 of the Rules of Procedure for WTO meetings. 
The DSB agreed to India's request.  
On 7 May 2002, India again requested the establishm ent of a compliance panel. At the DSB meeting 
on 22 May 2002, it was agreed that, if possible, the ma tter would be referred to the original panel. The 
United States reserved its third party righ ts to participate in the proceedings.  
51. WT/DS139, WT/DS142 – Canada – Certain Measures Affecting the Automotive 
Industry 
Complaints by Japan and the European Communities. Pursuant to Article 21.3 of the DSU, Canada 
informed the DSB on 19 July 2000 that it would comply with the recommendations of the DSB. One 
of the recommendations made by the DSB was that Canada withdraw within 90 days the export 
subsidy found to be inconsistent with Article 3.1(a) of the Subsidies Agreement. On 4 August 2000, 
Japan and the European Communities requested, pursua nt to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, that the 
reasonable period of time be determined by arbitratio n. The arbitrator determined that the "reasonable 
period of time" was 8 months from the date of a doption of the Appellate Body and Panel Reports, as 
modified by the Appellate Body Report. The "reaso nable period of time" was thus to expire on 19 
February 2001. At the DSB meeting of 12 March 2001, Canada stated that, as of 18 February 2001, it had complied with the DSB's recommendations. 
52. WT/DS138 – United States – Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products Originating in the United Kingdom 
Complaint by the European Communities. At the DSB meeting on 5 July 2000, the United States 
announced that it considered to have implemented th e recommendations of the DSB with regard to the 
case concerning its countervailing duty order on cer tain hot-rolled lead and bismuth carbon steel 
products originating in the United Kingdom. As a follow-up to this case, the EC has filed a new 
complaint against the US continued application of countervailing duties based on the "change of 
ownership" methodology. For further information, see WT/DS212. WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 218 
 
 
  53. WT/DS136 – United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 
Complaints by the European Communities (WT/DS136) and Japan (WT/DS162). At the DSB meeting 
of 23 October 2000, the US stated that it was its intention to implement the DSB's recommendations 
and rulings. The US also stated that it would require a reasonable period of time for implementation and that it would consult with the EC and Japan on this matter. On 17 November 2000, the EC and 
Japan requested that the reasonable period of time  be determined by arbitration pursuant to 
Article 21.3(c) of the DSU. The arbitrator circulat ed his report on 28 February 2001. He decided that 
the reasonable period of time in this case was 10 months and would thus expire on 26 July 2001. At its meeting on 24 July 2001, the DSB agreed to the US proposal to extend the reasonable period of time until 31 December 2001 or the end of the current session of the US Congress, whichever earlier. 
This extension had been agreed with the parties.  
At the DSB meeting on 18 December 2001, the US  informed that on 23 July 2001 it submitted 
proposed legislation to the US Congress repealing the 1916 Act and terminating all pending actions 
under the Act.. It added that, since the US Congress has not yet been adjourned, the US 
Administration continued to seek passage of the proposed legislation. Japan urged the US to complete 
the implementation within the reasonable period of ti me. However, in the event of non-compliance by 
the US, Japan will use its rights under Article 22 of th e DSU. The EC also indi cated that if the US 
would fail to comply with the DSB's recommendati ons, it would have no choice, but to request the 
authorization to suspend concessions or other obligations under Article 22.2 of the DSU. On 7 
January 2002, on the grounds that that the US had fa iled to bring its measures into conformity within 
the reasonable period of time, the EC and Japan requested authorisation to suspend concessions pursuant to Article 22.2 of the DSU. Both Member s propose that the suspension of concessions takes 
the form of an equivalent legislation to the Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 against imports from the US. 
On 17 January 2002, the US objected to the levels of suspension of obligat ions proposed by the EC 
and Japan and requested the DSB to refer the matter to arbitration, in accordance with Article 22.6 of 
the DSU. The US claimed that the principles and pr ocedures of Article 22.3 had not been followed by 
the EC and Japan. At the DSB meeting on 18 January  2002, the matter was referred to arbitration. 
During the meeting, the parties indicated that they  were still engaged in c onsultations and would be 
requesting the arbitrators, once appointed, to susp end their work with a view to exploring the 
possibility of finding a mutually satisfactory solution.  On 25 February 2002, the US submitted to the 
DSB a status report regarding implementation of the DSB recommendations and rulings. On 27 
February 2002, the parties requested the arbitrator to suspend the arbitration proceeding noting that a 
proposal to repeal the 1916 Act and to terminate cas es pending under the Act was being examined by 
the US Congress. The parties noted, however, that the arbitration proceeding could be reactivated at 
the request of either party after 30 June 2002 if no substantial progress would have been made in 
resolving the dispute by then.  
At the DSB meeting on 17 April 2002, the US subm itted its Status Report regarding implementation 
of the DSB recommendations and rulings. The US stat ed that a bill had already been introduced to 
repeal the 1916 Antidumping Act and terminat e some pending cases. While acknowledging the 
progress made, the EC and Japan stressed the necessity  for prompt compliance. Japan noted that under 
its bilateral agreement with the US, either party co uld re-activate the arbitration proceedings after 30 
June 2002.  
At the DSB meeting on 22 May 2002, the US submi tted its status report regarding the implementation 
of the DSB recommendations and rulings. The US stated that on 23 April 2002 a bill had been 
introduced in the US Senate which would repeal the 1916 Act and apply to all pending court cases.  
At the DSB meeting on 24 June 2002, the US submitted a status report where it stated that a bill had already been introduced in the US Congress to re peal the 1916 Anti-Dumping Act and to terminate  WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 219 
 
 
  some pending cases, and that it was continuing its e fforts to find a mutually satisfactory solution to 
this dispute with the EC and Japan. The EC and Japan expressed concern about the lack of progress in 
this matter and urged the US to repeal the 1916 Act as soon as possible. Japan cautioned the US that it might reactivate arbitration proceedings if the 19 16 Act was not repealed by 30 June. At the DSB 
meeting on 29 July 2002, the US reiterated the a bove statement. The EC and Japan expressed concern 
about the lack of progress in this matter and urged the United States to repeal the 1916 Act as soon as 
possible. They noted that proceedings against some  of their companies might resume very soon and 
that it was imperative for swift action to be take n by the United States to prevent their companies 
from incurring huge expenses to defend themselves under legislation which had been found to be 
inconsistent with WTO rules  
At the DSB meeting on 1 October 2002, the US submitte d its status report and, in reference to the 
concerns expressed by the EC and Japan at the previ ous meetings of the DSB, stated that the bills 
currently before the Congress would repeal the 1916 Act and apply to all pending cases. The EC and Japan expressed concern about the lack of progress and indicated that swift action was imperative to prevent their companies from incurring huge expen ses under WTO-inconsistent legislation. At the 
DSB meeting on 11 November 2002, the US indicated that that the US Administration would continue to work with the US Congress following the Congressional recess to achieve further progress in resolving this dispute. The EC and Japan expr essed concern about the lack of progress in this 
matter and urged the United States to repeal the 1 916 Act without further delay. They noted that 
proceedings against some of their companies had resumed and that it was imperative for swift action 
to be taken by the US to prevent their companies from incurring huge expenses to defend themselves 
under legislation which had been found to be incons istent with WTO rules. The EC said that the US 
status report was incomplete, as it did not menti on the bill introduced by Representative Henry Hyde 
last June, which if adopted, would repeal the 191 6 Act, but would not affect pending cases. For the 
EC, this would be unacceptable, as it would not fu lly comply with the recommendations and rulings 
of the DSB  
At the DSB meeting on 28 November 2002, the US reiterated that the bills repealing the 1916 Act 
which had been introduced in the US Congress, would apply to all pending court cases. It further 
stated that the US Administration would continue to work with the US Congress after the Congressional recess to achieve further progress in resolving this dispute. The EC and Japan 
expressed concern about the lack of progress in this matter and urged the US to repeal the 1916 Act without further delay. They also reiterated thei r concern about the bill introduced by Representative 
Henry Hyde on June 2002, wh ich if adopted, would repeal the 1916 Act, but would not affect pending 
cases. They noted that such a result would be unacceptable, as it would not fully comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. At the DSB meeting on 27 January 2003, the US repeated 
its previous status reports and the EC  and Japan reiterated their concerns.  
Given that no legislation had been adopted to re peal the 1916 Act and to terminate the cases pending 
before the US courts, on 19 September 2003 the EC  requested the Arbitrators to reactivate the 
arbitration proceeding in dispute WT/DS136. In  accordance with the request from the EC, the 
Arbitrators resumed the arbitration proceeding on the same day.  
In respect of the arbitration proceeding in dispute WT/DS136, on 24 February 2004 the decision by the Arbitrators was circulated to Members. In light  of the fact that the nullification or impairment 
results from the 1916 Act "as such", and not from particular instances of application of that law, the 
Arbitrators decided to set a number of parameters ((i) damages paid by EC companies as a result of 
judgements under the 1916 Act and (ii) amount of any settlement reached between an EC company 
and a US complainant pursuant to a 1916 Act compla int) with which the EC will have to comply 
when calculating by itself the amount of counterme asures it plans to impose, rather than setting a WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 220 
 
 
  fixed value of trade which the EC should not ex ceed when suspending its WTO obligations against 
the US.  
54. WT/DS132 – Mexico – Anti-Dumping Investigation of High-Fructose Corn Syrup 
(HFCS) from the United States 
Complaint by the United States. Pursuant to Artic le 21.3 of the DSU, Mexico informed the DSB on 
20 March 2000 that it was studying ways in which to implement the recommendations of the DSB. 
Mexico also indicated that it would need a reasona ble period of time in order to implement the DSB 
recommendations. On 19 April 2000, the parties informed the DSB that they had agreed, pursuant to Article 21.3(b) of the DSU, on a reasonable period of time to be granted to Mexico to implement the recommendations of the DSB. That period expired on 22 September 2000. At the DSB meeting of 26 
September 2000, Mexico stated that it had publishe d on 20 September 2000 the final determination on 
anti-dumping investigation of high-fructose corn sy rup from the US and thereby complied with the 
DSB's recommendation. US stated that it would examine Mexico's final determination.  
On 12 October 2000, the US requested that the DSB refer the matter to the original panel, pursuant to 
Article 21.5 of the DSU, in order to establish wh ether Mexico had correctly implemented the DSB's 
recommendations. At its meeting of 23 October 2000,  the DSB referred the matter to the original 
panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. The EC , Jamaica and Mauritius reserved their third-party 
rights to participate in the Panel's proceedings. The US and Mexico informed the DSB that they were 
discussing mutually agreeable procedures under Articl es 21 and 22 of the DSU in relation to this 
matter.  
The Article 21.5 Panel circulated its report on 22 Ju ne 2001. The Panel considered that Mexico has 
failed to implement the recommendation of the origin al Panel and the DSU to bring its measure into 
conformity with its obligations under the AD Agreem ent. On 24 July 2001, Mexico appealed the 
above Panel report. On 20 Septem ber 2001, the Appellate Body informed that the issuance of the 
report would be delayed. The report was circulated to WTO Members on 22 October 2001. The DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel re port, as upheld by the Appellate Body report, on 
21 November 2001.  
55. WT/DS126 – Australia – Subsidies Provided to  Producers and Exporters of Automotive 
Leather 
Complaint by the United States.  On 17 September 1999, Australia informed the DSB that it had implemented the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. On 4 October 1999, the United States informed the DSB that it believed that the measures ta ken by Australia to comply with the rulings and 
recommendations of the DSB were not consistent with the Subsidies Agreement and the DSU, and 
therefore requested that the original panel be rec onvened pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. The EC 
and Mexico reserved their third-pa rty rights. The United States and Australia reached an agreement 
concerning certain procedures to be applicable in  this case under Articles 21 and 22. That agreement 
provided, 
inter alia , that Australia will not raise any procedural objection to the establishment of a 
panel in accordance with Article 21.5 of the DSU, while the United States will not request authorization to suspend concessions pursuant to Article 22.2 of the DSU until after the review panel has circulated its report. Also, it has been agreed that neither party will appeal the review panel's 
report.  
At its meeting on 14 October 1999, the DSB agreed  to reconvene the original panel pursuant to 
Article 21.5 of the DSU. The EC and Mexico reserve d their third-party rights.  On 1 November 1999, 
the Compliance Panel was composed. The compliance panel report was circulated to Members on 21 January 2000. The compliance panel determined that  Australia had failed to comply with the DSB's  WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 221 
 
 
  recommendations within 90 days, and thus ha d not taken measures to comply with the 
recommendation of the DSB in this dispute. Th e DSB adopted the review panel's report on 11 
February 2000. On 24 July 2000, the parties notified the DSB that they had reached a mutually 
satisfactory solution in regard to implementation of the findings of the review panel.  
56. WT/DS121 – Argentina – Safeguard Me asures on Imports of Footwear 
Complaint by the European Communities. Pursuant to  Article 21.3 of the DSU, Argentina informed 
the DSB on 11 February 2000 that the safeguard measure would remain in force until 25 February 2000 and, by that date, the measures aimed at co mplying with the DSB's recommendations and ruling 
would be adopted.  
57. WT/DS114 – Canada – Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products 
Complaint by the European Communities and their member States. Pursuant to Article 21.3 of the DSU, Canada informed the DSB on 25 April 2000 that it would require a reasonable period of time in order to implement the recommendations of the DSB.  Since the parties failed to reach a mutually 
satisfactory solution as to the "reasonable period of  time" for implementation of the recommendations 
of the DSB, despite a mutually agreed extension of  the period of time foreseen in Article 21.3(b) of 
the DSU, on 9 June 2000, the European Commun ities and their member States requested that the 
reasonable period of time be determined by arbitrat ion pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU. The 
arbitrator determined, pursuant to Article 21.3 of the DSU, that the reasonable period of time for Canada to implement the recommendations and rulings  of the DSB is six months from the date of 
adoption of the panel report and that the reasonable period would thus end on 7 October 2000. At the 
DSB meeting of 23 October 2000, Canada informed Members that, effective from 7 October 2000, it 
had implemented the DSB's recommendations.  
58. WT/DS108 – United States – Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations" 
Complaint by the European Communities. Pursuant to  Article 21.3 of the DSU, the US informed the 
DSB on 7 April 2000 of its intention to implemen t the recommendations of the DSB in a manner 
consistent with its WTO obligations. At the request of the United States, at its meeting of 12 October 
2000, the DSB modified the time-period for implementation so as to expire on 1 November 2000. On 
17 November 2000, the US stated that, with the adoption on 15 November 2000 of the FSC Repeal 
and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act, it ha d implemented the recommendations and rulings of 
the DSB. On the same date, the EC stated that, in its view, the US had failed to comply with the DSB 
recommendations and rulings, and requested the US to  enter into consultations with the EC pursuant 
to Articles 4 and 21.5 of the DSU, Article 4 of th e SCM Agreement, Article 19 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture and Article XXIII:1 of GATT 1994. Al so on 17 November 2000, the EC requested 
authorisation from the DSB to take appropriate countermeasures and suspend concessions pursuant to 
Article 4.10 of the SCM Agreement and Article 22.2 of the DSU.  
Pursuant to an agreement between the parties to the dispute, the US would request arbitration with 
respect to the EC's request and the arbitration would be suspended until the reconstituted panel has 
decided the conformity of the new US legislation with the panel and Appellate Body reports. On 27 
November 2000, the US requested that the matter be re ferred to arbitration pursuant to Article 22.6 of 
the DSU. On 7 December 2000, the EC notified th e DSB that consultations had failed to settle the 
dispute and that it was requesting the establishment of  a panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. At 
its meeting of 20 December, the DSB agreed to refer the matter to the original panel. On 21 December 
2000, pursuant to an agreement between the parti es, the US and the EC jointly requested the 
Article 22.6 DSU arbitrator to suspend the arbitra tion proceeding until adoption of the panel report or, WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 222 
 
 
  if there is an appeal, adoption of the Appella te Body report. The arbitration was accordingly 
suspended.  
On 20 August 2001, the compliance panel report was ci rculated to the Members. The Panel concluded 
that the amended FSC legislation was still inconsistent with Artic les 3.1(a) and 3.2 of the SCM 
Agreement, with 10.1 and 8 of the Agreement on Agriculture and with Article III:4 of the GATT 
1994.  
On 15 October 2001, the US notified its decision  to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the pa nel report. On 14 January 2002, th e Appellate Body circulated its 
Report to the Members. The Appellate Body uph eld the Panel's findings that the US acted 
inconsistently with its obligati ons under the SCM Agreement, the Agreement on Agriculture, and the 
GATT 1994 through the FSC amended legislation, a measure taken by the United States to implement 
the recommendations and rulings made by the DSB in the original proceedings in the US – FSC  
dispute. With respect to third party rights, the Appellate Body found that the Panel erred in its 
interpretation of Article 10.3 of the DSU in declining to rule that all written submissions of the parties 
filed prior to the first meeting of the Panel must be provided to the third parties.  
At its meeting on 29 January 2002, the DSB adopted  the Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report, 
as upheld by the Appellate Body Report. In accordan ce with the procedural agreement concluded by 
the parties to the dispute in September 2000 (WT/DS108/12), Article 22.6 arbitration on the amount of countermeasures and suspension of concessi ons would be automatically reactivated.  
On 30 August 2002, the Arbitrator's award was circulated. The Arbitrator determined that the suspension by the EC of concessions under the GATT 1994 in the form of the imposition of a 100 per 
cent 
ad valorem  charge on imports of certain goods from the United States in a maximum amount of 
$4,043 million per year, as described in the EC's re quest for authorization to take countermeasures 
and suspend concessions, would constitute appropr iate countermeasures within the meaning of 
Article 4.10 of the SCM Agreement.  
On 24 April 2003, the EC requested authorization to suspend concessions or  other obligations under 
Article 22.7 of the DSU and Article 4.10 of the SC M Agreement. At its meeting on 7 May 2003, the 
DSB granted the EC authorization to take appropr iate countermeasures and to suspend concessions.  
On 5 November 2004, the EC requested the US to enter into consultations under Articles 4 and 21.5 of the DSU, Article 4 of the 
SCM Agreement , Article 19 of the Agreement on Agriculture and 
Article XXII:1 of GATT 1994 with respect to the American JOBS Creation Act of 2004  (the "JOBS 
Act") enacted by the US on 22 October 2004. Accord ing to the EC, the JOBS Act was intended to 
implement the DSB recommendations and rulings in th is case (compliance phase) but failed to do so 
properly and was inconsistent w ith the same provisions of the WTO Agreement  as did the predecessor 
legislation. In particular, the European Commun ities considers that Section 101 of the JOBS Act 
contains transitional provisions which will allow US  exporters to continue to benefit from the WTO 
incompatible FSC Replacement and Extraterritorial  Income Exclusion Act (a) in the years 2005 and 
2006 with respect to all export transactions and (b) for an indefinite period with respect to certain binding contracts, thus failing to withdraw th e subsidy and implement the DSB's recommendations 
and rulings. On 17 November 2004, Australia requested to join the consultations.  
On 13 January 2005, the EC notified the DSB that consultations had failed to  settle the dispute and 
that it was requesting the establishment of a panel purs uant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. At its meeting 
of 25 January 2005, the DSB deferred the establishm ent of a panel. At its meeting of 17 February 
2005, the DSB agreed to refer the matter to the original panel.   WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 223 
 
 
  On 22 April 2005, the European Communities requested  the Director-General to compose the panel. 
On 2 May 2005, the Director-General composed the panel. On 2 August 2005, the Panel informed the 
DSB that given the particular circumstances of this case and the schedule agreed after consultations 
with parties to this dispute, it was not possible fo r the Panel to complete its work within the 90-day 
period as foreseen in Article 21.5, and that the Pane l expected to complete its work by the second 
week of August. 
On 30 September 2005, the Panel Report was circulat ed to Members. The Panel found that the United 
States has failed to implement fully the DSB reco mmendations and rulings arising from the original 
dispute and first compliance proceedings.  (See also Section V:B). On 24 November 2005, the United States notified its decision to appeal to the Appellate  Body certain issues of law covered in the Panel 
Report and certain legal interpreta tions developed by the Panel.  On 28 November 2005, the European 
Communities notified its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law covered in the Panel Report and certain legal inte rpretations developed by the Panel.  On 13 February 2006, the 
Appellate Body circulated its report. 
59. WT/DS103, WT/DS113 – Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the 
Exportation of Dairy Products 
Complaints by the United States and New Zealand.  At the DSB meeting of 19 November 1999, 
Canada stated its intention to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. On 23 
December 1999, Canada informed the DSB that, pursu ant to Article 21.3 of the DSU and after having 
agreed to extend the time periods set forth in Article 21.3(b) of the DSU, it has reached an 
understanding with the US and New Zealand on four discrete periods of time to be accorded a staged 
implementation process. According to the implementa tion agreement, Canada must complete the last 
stage of the implementation process no later than  31 December 2000. On 11 December 2000, Canada, 
the US and New Zealand informed the DSB that th ey had agreed to extend the reasonable period of 
time until 31 January 2001.  
On 16 February 2001, both the US and New Zealand requested the DSB to re fer the matter to the 
original panel pursuant to Article 21.5 DSU. At its meeting of 1 March 2001, the DSB referred the 
matter to the original panel, if possible. Australia, the EC and Mexico reserved their third party rights. 
Also on 16 February 2001, both the US and New Zealand requested authorization from the DSB, 
pursuant to Article 22.2 DSU, to suspend the appli cation to Canada of tariff concessions and related 
obligations under the GATT 1994, eac h covering trade in the amount of US$ 35 million on an annual 
basis. On 28 February 2001, Canada objected to th e level of suspension and requested that the matter 
be referred to arbitration pursuant to Article 22. 6 DSU. At its meeting of 1 March 2001, the DSB 
referred the matter to arbitration.  
On 12 April 2001, the compliance Panel was composed. It circulated its report on 11 July 2001. On 4 September 2001, Canada appealed the compliance Panel report. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members on 3 December 2001. The Appe llate Body concluded that, in the light of the 
factual findings made by the Panel and the uncontest ed facts in the Panel record, it was unable to 
complete the analysis of the claims made by Ne w Zealand and the United States under Articles 9.1(c) 
or 10.1 of the Agreement on Agriculture, or the claim made by the United States under Article 3.1 of the SCM Agreement. At its meeting on 18 Decemb er 2001, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body 
Report and the Panel Report, as reversed by the Appellate Body Report.  
On 6 December 2001, the US submitted to the DSB a second recourse for the establishment of a panel 
pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. The US submitted that, since the Appellate Body's 21.5 Report 
did not make any findings on the consistency of Canada's new measures, the US continued to believe that Canada had failed to comply with the origin al recommendations and rulings of the DSB. On the WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 224 
 
 
  same date, New Zealand made a similar request . At its meeting on 18 December 2001, the DSB 
agreed, pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU, to refe r to the original Panel, for the second time, the 
matter raised by New Zealand and the US. At the m eeting, the EC and Australia reserved third-party 
rights to participate in the Panel's proceedings. On 28 December 2001, Argentina also reserved its 
third-party rights to participate in the Panel's proceedings.  
On 18 December 2001, Canada c oncluded with New Zealand and th e US respectively, additional 
understandings regarding procedures under Article 21 and 22 of the DSU. Pursuant to both 
understandings, Canada and the respective party agree to request that the arbitration requested by 
Canada under Article 22.6 of the DSU remain suspe nded pending the work of the compliance Panel.  
On 17 January 2002, the second compliance Panel was composed. On 26 July 2002, the Report was 
circulated to the Members. On 23 September 2002, Canada notified its intention to appeal certain 
issues of law and legal interpreta tions developed by the compliance panel. On 20 December 2002, the 
Appellate Body circulated its report.  
On 16 January 2003, the parties informed the DSB that they had requested an extension of the 
suspension of the Art. 22.6 DSU arbitration until 7 Fe bruary 2003, in order to permit time for further 
consultations. On 6 February 2003,  the parties informed the DSB th at they had agreed that the 
arbitration remain suspended until 10 April 2003. On 9 April 2003, the parties informed the DSB that 
they had agreed to further suspend the arbitrati on until 9 May 2003. On 9 May 2003, Canada and the 
United States, and Canada and New Zealand inform ed the DSB that they had reached a mutually 
agreed solution under Article 3.6 of the DSU in the disputes WT/DS103 and WT/DS113.  
60. WT/DS99 – United States – Anti-Dumping  Duty on Dynamic Random Access Memory 
Semiconductors (DRAMS) of One Megabit or Above from Korea 
Complaint by Korea. On 13 April 1999, the United States informed the DSB it was studying ways in 
which to implement the recommendations of the DSB. At the DSB meeting on 26 July 1999, the two parties notified the DSB that they had agreed on an  implementation period of 8 months effective from 
the date of adoption of the report, i.e. from 19 March 1999. The reasonable period of time expired on 
19 November 1999.  
At the DSB meeting on 27 January 2000, the US stated that it considered to have implemented the recommendations and rulings by the DSB. The US  recalled that the Commerce Department had 
amended section 351.222(b) by deleting the "not lik ely" standard and incorporating the "necessary" 
standard of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. The Co mmerce Department then issued a revised Final 
Results of Redetermination in the Third Admini strative Review on 4 November 1999, concluding 
that, because a resumption of dumping was likely, it was necessary to leave the anti-dumping order in place.  
On 9 March 2000, Korea informed the DSB that it believed that the measures taken by the United 
States to comply with the rulings and recommendations of the DSB were not consistent with the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article X:1 of GATT 1994. Ko rea therefore requested that this matter be 
referred to the original panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. On 6 April 2000, Korea submitted a 
new request to the effect that the matter be referred to the original panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of 
the DSU. At its meeting on 25 April 2000, the DSB agr eed to reconvene the orig inal panel pursuant to 
Article 21.5 of the DSU. The EC reserved its reserved its third-party rights.  
On 19 September 2000, Korea requested the Panel to suspend its work, including the issuance of the interim report, "until further notification" pursuant to  Article 12.12 of the DSU. The Panel, in a letter 
sent to the parties on 21 September 2000, agreed to this request. On 20 October 2000, the parties  WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 225 
 
 
  notified the DSB of a mutually satisfactory solution to the matter, involving the revocation of the 
antidumping order at issue as the result of a five-year "sunset" review by the US Department of Commerce.  
61. WT/DS98 – Korea – Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Certain Dairy 
Products 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 11 Febr uary 2000, Korea informed the DSB that it was 
studying ways in which to implement the recommendations of the DSB. On 21 March 2000, the parties notified the DSB that they had agreed  on a reasonable period of time for Korea's 
implementation of the recommendations of the DSB.  Pursuant to that agreement, the reasonable 
period expired on 20 May 2000. At the DSB meeting of 26 September 2000, Korea informed the DSB 
that it had lifted its safeguard measure on 20 May 2 000 and stated that it thereby had completed the 
implementation of the DSB's recommendations in this case. 
62. WT/DS90 – India – Quantitative Restrictions  on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and 
Industrial Products 
Complaint by the United States. At the DSB meeting of 14 October 1999, India stated its intention to 
comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB, at the same time drawing attention to the 
Panel's suggestion that the reasonable period of time  for implementation in this case could be longer 
than 15 months in view of the practice of the IMF, the BOP Committee and GATT and WTO panels of granting longer phase-out periods for the eliminati on of BOP restrictions, and in view of India's 
status as a developing country Member.  
On 28 December 1999, the parties informed the DS B that they had reached an agreement on the 
reasonable period of time for India to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. The reasonable period of time was to expire on 1 April 2000,  except for some tariff items to be notified by 
India to the US for which the reasonable period of time was to expire on 1 April 2001. Pursuant to the agreement reached, India had to treat the US no less  favourably than any other Member with respect 
to the elimination of or modification of quantitativ e restrictions affecting any product covered by the 
agreement. At the DSB meeting of 27 July 2000, Indi a stated that it had notified to the United States 
those tariff items for which the reasonable period is to expire on 1 April 2001 and that for all other 
items India had implemented the recommendation of the DSB by 1 April 2000. At the DSB meeting of 5 April 2001, India announced that, with effect  from 1 April 2001, it had removed the quantitative 
restrictions on imports in respect of the remain ing 715 items and had thus implemented the DSB's 
recommendations in this case. The United States welcomed India's action and said that it had some 
specific questions to ask India in the next few days.  
63. WT/DS87, WT/DS110 – Chile – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages 
Complaints by the European Communities. On 11 Fe bruary 2000, Chile informed the DSB that it was 
studying ways in which to implement the recommendati ons of the DSB, noting that any changes to its 
tax laws required the approval of  the National Congress and that it would therefore require a 
reasonable period of time to implement the reco mmendations of the DSB. On 15 March 2000, Chile 
requested, pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, that the reasonable period of time be determined by 
arbitration.  
The report of the arbitrator was circulated to Members on 23 May 2000. The arbitrator determined, pursuant to Article 21.3 of the DSU, that the reasonable period of time for Chile to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB is not mo re than 14 months and 9 days from 12 January WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 226 
 
 
  2000, i.e. Chile had until 21 March 2001 to enact an d put into effect a law appropriately amending the 
relevant tax legislation. 
At the DSB meeting of 1 February 2001, Chile a nnounced that implementing legislation was adopted 
by a clear majority in both the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate, and that its full entry into force 
awaits only on its promulgation by the President of  the Republic and its publication in the Official 
Journal. Under this legislative reform, the existing ra te of 27 per cent would be maintained for Pisco, 
while that same rate would be applied to other alcoholic beverages as from 21 March 2003. In the 
meantime, the tax applied to those spirits w ill be progressively reduced to 27 per cent.  
64. WT/DS79 – India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical Products 
Complaint by the European Communities. India indicated at the DSB meeting of 21 October 1998, that it needed a reasonable period of time to co mply with the DSB recommendations and that it 
intended to have bilateral consulta tions with the EC to agree on a mutually acceptable period of time. 
At the DSB meeting on 25 November 1998, India read out a joint statement done with the EC, in which it was agreed that the implementation pe riod in this dispute would correspond to the 
implementation period in a similar dispute brought  by the US (DS50). At the DSB meeting on 28 
April 1999, India presented its final status report on implementation of DS50, which also applies to 
implementation in this dispute. The report disclosed  the enactment of the relevant legislation to 
implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. 
65. WT/DS76 – Japan – Measures Affecting Agricultural Products 
Complaint by the United States. Pursuant to Article  21.3 of the DSU, Japan informed the DSB on 13 
April 1999 that it was studying ways in which to implement the recommendations of the DSB. In a 
joint communication, the two parties informed the DSB on 15 June 1999, that they had agreed on an 
implementation period of 9 months and 12 days from th e date of adoption of the reports, i.e. from 19 
March to 31 December 1999.  
On 31 December 1999, Japan abolished the varietal  testing requirement as well as the "Experimental 
Guide" in accordance with the DS B's rulings. At the DSB meeting on 14 January 2000, Japan also 
stated that it was conducting consultations with the US regarding a new quarantine methodology for 
those products subject to import prohibitions because they were hosts of codling moth. At the DSB meeting on 24 February 2000, Japan noted that it e xpected to reach a mutually satisfactory solution 
with the US regarding a new quarantine methodology.  
On 23 August 2001, Japan and the US notified to  the DSB that they had reached a mutually 
satisfactory solution with respect to conditions for lifting import prohibitions on the fruits and nuts at 
issue in the dispute.  
66. WT/DS75, WT/DS84 – Korea – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages 
Complaints by the European Communities and the United States. At the DSB meeting on 19 March 1999, Korea informed the DSB that it was considering options for implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations. On 9 April 1999, the two complainants separately requested, pursuant to 
Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, that the reasonable period of time for Korea to implement the recommendations of the DSB be determined by arbitr ation. On 23 April 1999, the three parties to the 
dispute jointly informed the DSB that they had ag reed on the appointment of an arbitrator for the 
determination of the reasonable peri od of time for implementation, and also that they had agreed that 
the arbitrator issue his arbitration award no later than 7 June 1999. On 4 June 1999, the arbitrator  WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 227 
 
 
  determined the reasonable period of time to be 11 m onths and two weeks. i.e. until 31 January 2000. 
At the DSB meeting on 27 January 2000, Korea stated  that it considered to have fully implemented 
the DSB's rulings and recommendations by amending its Liquor Tax Law and the Education Tax Law 
to impose flat rates of 72% liquor tax and 30% edu cation tax on all distilled alcoholic beverages on a 
non-discriminatory basis. 
67. WT/DS70 – Canada – Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft 
Complaint by Brazil. At the DSB meeting of 19  November 1999, Canada announced that it had 
withdrawn the measures at issue within 90 days and thus had implemented the recommendations and 
rulings of the DSB. On 23 November 1999, Brazil requested the establishment of a panel under Article 21.5 because it believed that Canada had not taken measures to comply fully with the rulings 
and recommendations of the DSB. Brazil and Ca nada reached an agreement concerning the 
procedures to be applicable pursuant to Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU and Article 4 of the Subsidies 
Agreement. At its meeting on 9 December 1999, the DSB agreed to reconvene the original panel 
pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. Australia, the EC and the US reserved their third-party rights.  
The compliance panel report was circulated to Me mbers on 9 May 2000. The panel concluded that 
Canada's measures did not ensure that such Cana da Account transactions would not be prohibited 
export subsidies.  
On 22 May 2000, Brazil notified its intention to app eal certain issues of law and legal interpretations 
developed by the review panel. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members on 9 
May 2000. The Appellate Body found that Brazi l had failed to establish that Canada has not 
implemented the recommendations of the DSB. The DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the 
panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body report, at its meeting on 4 August 2000. Canada 
stated its intention to implement the recommendations  of the DSB in respect of the Canada Account 
Programme.  
68. WT/DS69 – European Communities – Meas ures Affecting Importation of Certain 
Poultry Products 
Complaint by Brazil. The EC and Brazil announced at the DSB meeting on 21 October 1998, that they 
had reached a mutual agreement on a reasonable period of time for implementation, which was to be the period up to 31 March 1999. 
69. WT/DS58 – United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products 
Complaint by India, Malaysia, Pakistan and Tha iland. On 25 November 1998, the US informed the 
DSB that it was committed to implementing the recommendations of the DSB and was looking 
forward to discussing with the complainants the ques tion of implementation. The parties to the dispute 
announced that they had agreed on an implementati on period of 13 months from the date of adoption 
of the Appellate Body and Panel Reports, i.e. it expired on 6 December 1999. On 22 December 1999, 
Malaysia and the United States informed the DSB that they had reached an understanding regarding 
possible proceedings under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU.  
At the DSB meeting on 27 January 2000, the US stated that it had implemented the DSB's rulings and recommendations. The US noted that it had issued revised guidelines implementing its Shrimp/Turtle law which were intended to (i) introduce greater flexibility in considering the comparability of foreign programmes and the US programme and (ii) elabor ate a timetable and procedures for certification 
decisions. The US also noted that it had undertaken  and continued to undertake efforts to initiate 
negotiations with the governments of the Indian Ocea n region on the protection of sea turtles in that WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 228 
 
 
  region. Finally, the US stated that it offered and continued to offer technical training in the design, 
construction, installation and operati on of TEDs to any government that requested it. See also Section 
VI.B.  
On 12 October 2000, Malaysia requested that the matter be referred to the original panel pursuant to 
Article 21.5 of the DSU, considering that by not lifting the import prohibition and not taking the 
necessary measures to allow the importation of certain shrimp and shrimp products in an unrestrictive 
manner, the United States had failed to comply with  the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. At 
its meeting of 23 October 2000, the DSB referred the matter to the original panel pursuant to 
Article 21.5 DSU.  
On 9 July 2001, the US notified its decision to app eal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law 
covered in the Panel Report and certa in legal interpretations develope d by the Panel. On 5 September 
2001, the Appellate Body informed the DSB that it would not be able to circulate its report within the 
7 September deadline. Accordingly, the Report is e xpected to be circulated no later than 8 October 
2001.  
70. WT/DS56 – Argentina -Measures Affecting Imports of Footwear, Textiles, Apparel and 
Other Items 
Complaint by the United States. At the DSB mee ting on 22 June 1998, Argentina announced that it 
had reached an agreement on implementation with  the US, whereby Argentina would reduce the 
statistical tax to 0.5% by 1 January 1999, and cap  specific duties on textiles and apparel at 35% by 19 
October 1998. At the DSB meeting on 26 May 1999, Argentina announced that Decree 108/99, 
pursuant to which no import transactions covered by th e statistical tax shall be taxed in excess of the 
amounts agreed between it and the United States, would enter into force on 30 May 1999.  
71. WT/DS54, WT/DS55, WT/DS59, WT/DS64 – Indonesia – Certain Measures Affecting 
the Automobile Industry 
Complaints by the United States, the European Communities and Japan. Indonesia indicated its 
intention to comply with the recommendations of the DSB within the time permissible under Article 21 of the DSU. On 8 October 1998, the EC, pursuant to Article 21.3 of the DSU, requested 
that the reasonable period of implementation be determined by binding arbitration. The Arbitrator 
determined that the reasonable period of time fo r Indonesia to implement the recommendations and 
rulings of the DSB was 12 months from the date of adoption of the Panel Report i.e. it expired on 23 
July 1999. The report of the Arbitrator was circulated to Members on 7 December 1998. By a communication dated 15 July 1999, Indonesia inform ed the DSB that it had issued a new automotive 
policy on 24 June 1999 (the 1999 Automotive Policy), which effectively implemented the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this matter. 
72. WT/DS50 – India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical Products 
Complaint by the United States. At the DSB meet ing of 22 April 1998, the parties announced that 
they had agreed on an implementation period of 15 months from the date of the adoption of the 
reports i.e. it expired on 16 April 1999. India unde rtook to comply with the recommendations of the 
DSB within the implementation period. On 14 Janua ry 1999, the US requested consultations with 
India in accordance with Article 21.5 of the DSU (without prejudice to the US position on whether 
Article 21.5 requires consultations before refe rring to the original panel) regarding the Patents 
(Amendment) Ordinance , 1999, promulgated by India to implem ent the rulings and recommendations 
of the DSB. On 29 January 1999, the European Communities requested to join the consultations. At  WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 229 
 
 
  the DSB meeting on 28 April 1999, India presented its final status report on implementation of this 
matter which disclosed the enactment of the releva nt legislation to implement the recommendations 
and rulings of the DSB.  
73. WT/DS46 – Brazil – Export Financing Programme for Aircraft 
Complaint by Canada. At the DSB meeting of 19 November 1999, Brazil announced that it had 
withdrawn the measures at issue within 90 days and had thus implemented the recommendations and 
rulings of the DSB.  
On 23 November 1999, Canada requested the establishment of a panel under Article 21.5 of the DSU, 
requesting that the panel find that Brazil had not ta ken measures to comply fully with the rulings and 
recommendations of the DSB. Canada and Brazil r eached an agreement concerning the procedures to 
be applicable pursuant to Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU and Article 4 of the Subsidies Agreement. At 
its meeting on 9 December 1999, the DSB agreed to reconvene the original panel pursuant to 
Article 21.5. The report of the Panel was circulated to the Members on 9 May 2000.  
On 10 May, Canada requested authorization from th e DSB to suspend the application to Brazil of 
concessions or other related obligations under th e GATT, the Textiles Agreement and the Import 
Licensing Agreement, pursuant to Article 4.10 of the Subsidies Agreement and Article 22.2 of the 
DSU, in an amount of Can$700 million per year.  
On 22 May 2000, Brazil notified its intention to app eal certain issues of law and legal interpretations 
developed by the review panel. At the DSB meeting on 22 May 2000, Brazil also requested 
arbitration, pursuant to Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the Subsidies Agreement, to 
determine whether the countermeasures requested by  Canada were appropria te. The DSB referred the 
matter to the original panel for arbitration, it being understood that no countermeasures would be 
sought pending the report of the Appellate Body  and until after the arbitration report.  
The report of the Appellate Body was circulated  to Members on 9 May 2000. The Appellate Body 
upheld the review panel's conclusion that Brazil had failed to implement the recommendation of the 
DSB because of the continued i ssuance by Brazil of NTN-I bonds, after 18 November 1999, pursuant 
to letters of commitment issued before 18 Nove mber 1999. The Appellate Body also upheld the 
review panel's findings that payments made under the revised PROEX are prohibited by Article 3 of 
the Subsidies Agreement and are not justified under item (k) of the Illustrative List of the same 
Agreement. The Appellate Body therefore upheld th e review panel's conclusion that Brazil has failed 
to implement the recommendations of the DSB. The DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body  report, at its meeting on 4 August 2000.  
Brazil stated its intention to bring future PROEX operations in line with the recommendations of the 
DSB. The arbitrator's report was circulated to Me mbers on 28 August 2000. The arbitrators found that 
the appropriate countermeasures in this case amounted to C$344.2 million per year. The arbitrators found that Canada may request authorization by the DSB to suspend tariff concessions or other 
obligations under GATT 1994, the Agreement on Te xtiles and Clothing and the Agreement on Import 
Licensing Procedures. At the DSB meeting of 12 December 2000, Canada received, pursuant to Article 22.7 of the DSU and Article 4.10 of the SCM Agreement, authorization from the DSB to suspend the application to Brazil of tariff concessions or other obligatio ns under GATT 1994, the 
Agreement on Textiles and Clothing and the Agr eement on Import Licensing Procedures covering 
trade in a maximum amount of C$ 344.2 million pe r year. On 12 December 2000, Brazil advised the 
DSB of changes that it had made to the measures at issue in this case and claimed that PROEX had 
been brought into compliance with Brazil's obligations under the SCM Agreement. Canada is of the 
view that Brazil continues to violate its SCM Agre ement obligations. According to Canada, there is WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 230 
 
 
  therefore a disagreement between Canada and Brazil as to whether the measures taken by Brazil to 
comply with the 20 August 1999 and 4 August 2000 rulings and recommendations of the DSB bring Brazil into conformity with the provisions of the SCM Agreement and result in the withdrawal of the export subsidies to regional aircraft under PROEX.  
On 22 January 2001, Canada requested the DSB to refer the matter again to the original panel, 
pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. At its meeti ng of 16 February 2001, the DSB referred the matter 
to the original panel. Australia, the EC and Korea reserved their third-party rights. The Panel circulated its report on 26 July 2001. At its meeting on 23 August 2001, the DSB adopted the Panel Report on this second recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU.  
74. WT/DS34 – Turkey – Restrictions on Imports of Textile and Clothing Products 
Complaint by India. At the DSB meeting of 19 November 1999, Turkey stated its intention to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. On 7 January 2000, the parties informed the DSB 
that they had agreed that the reasonable period of time for Turkey to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings would expire on 19 February 2001. Pursuant to the agreement reached, Turkey also was to refrain from making more restrictive restrictions affecting imports of specified 
textile and clothing products from India, to increase the size of the quotas of India on certain specified 
textile and clothing products and to treat India no less favourably than any ot her Member with respect 
to the elimination of or modification of quantitativ e restrictions affecting any product covered by the 
agreement.  
On 6 July 2001, the parties to the dispute notif ied the DSB that they have reached a mutually 
acceptable solution regarding implementation by Turkey of the conclusions and recommendations adopted by the DSB on the matter. Pursuant to the Agreement, Turkey agreed to: 
• remove the quantitative restrictions it applies on  textile categories 24 and 27 in respect of 
imports from India, by 30 June 2001 or th e date of signature of the Agreement; 
• carry out tariff reductions on the applied rate basis as described in annex to the Agreement, by 
30 September 2001;  
• strive towards early compliance with the r ecommendations and rulings of the DSB.  
Pursuant to the Agreement, the compensation w ould remain effective until Turkey removes all 
quantitative restrictions applied as of 1 January 199 6 in respect of imports from India for the 19 
categories of textile and clothing products.  
At the meeting of the DSB on 18 December 2001, India made a statement concerning the lack of notification by Turkey of tariff reductions carried out as part of the implementation process.  
75. WT/DS33 – United States – Measures Affecting Imports of Woven Wool Shirts and Blouses 
Complaint by India. The US announced that th e measure was withdrawn as at 22 November 1996, 
before the Panel had concluded its work. Therefore, no implementation issue arose.  WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 231 
 
 
  76. WT/DS31 – Canada – Certain Measures Concerning Periodicals 
Complaint by the United States. The implementation pe riod was agreed by the parties to be 15 months 
from the date of adoption of the reports i.e. it expired on 30 October 1998. Ca nada has withdrawn the 
contested measure. 
77. WT/DS27 – European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and 
Distribution of Bananas 
Complaints by Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and the United States.  
On 17 November 1997, the complainants request ed that the "reasonable period of time" for 
implementation of the recommendations and rulings of  the DSB be determined by binding arbitration, 
pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU. The Arbitrator found the reasonable period of time for implementation to be 15 months and 1 week from the da te of the adoption of the reports i.e. it expired 
on 1 January 1999. The report of the Arbitrator was circulated to Members on 7 January 1998.  
On 18 August 1998, further the EC's revision of their legislation, the complainants requested 
consultations with the EC (without prejudice to th eir rights under Article 21.5), for the resolution of 
the disagreement between them over the WTO-consistency of measures introduced by the EC in purported compliance with the recommendations and rulings of the Panel and Appellate Body. At the 
DSB meeting on 25 November 1998, the EC announced that it had adopted the second Regulation to implement the recommendations of the DSB, and that the new system will be fully operational from 1 January 1999. On 15 December 1998, the EC requested the establishment of a panel under Article 21.5 to determine that the implementing meas ures of the EC must be presumed to conform to 
WTO rules unless challenged in accordance with DSU procedures. On 18 December 1998, Ecuador 
requested the re-establishment of the original pane l, under Article 21.5, to examine whether the EC 
measures to implement the recommendations of the DSB are WTO-consistent. At its meeting on 12 January 1999, the DSB agreed to reconvene the origin al panel, pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU, to 
examine both Ecuador's and the EC's requests.  
On 14 January 1999, the United States, pursuant to Article 22.2 of the DSU, requested authorization 
from the DSB for suspension of concessions to the EC in an amount of US$520 million. At the DSB 
meeting on 29 January 1999, the EC, pursuant to Ar ticle 22.6 of the DSU, requested arbitration on the 
level of suspension of concessions requested by th e United States. The DSB referred the issue of the 
level of suspension to the original panel for arbitr ation. Pursuant to Article 22.6 of the DSU, the 
request for the suspension of concessions by th e United States was deferred by the DSB until the 
determination, through the arbitration, of the a ppropriate level for the suspension of concessions.  
In the arbitration under Article 22.6 of the DSU, necessitated by the EC's challenge to the level of 
suspension sought by the United States (US$520 milli on), the arbitrators found that the level of 
suspension sought by the United States was not equivale nt to the level of nullification and impairment 
suffered as a result of the EC's new banana regime not being full y compatible with the WTO. The 
arbitrators accordingly determined the level of nullif ication suffered by the United States to be equal 
to US$191.4 million. The arbitrator's report and the repor ts of the panels were issued to the parties on 
6 April 1999, and circulated to Members on 9 and 12 April 1999 respectively. On 9 April 1999, the 
United States, pursuant to Article 22.7 of the DSU,  requested that the DSB authorize suspension of 
concessions to the EC equivalent to the level of  nullification and impairment, i.e. US$191.4 million. 
On 19 April 1999, the DSB authorized the Unite d States to suspend concessions to the EC as 
requested.  WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 232 
 
 
  The report of the compliance panel requested by Ec uador, under Article 21.5 of the DSU, was adopted 
by the DSB on 6 May 1999. On 8 November 1999, Ecuador requested authorization from the DSB to 
suspend the application to the EC of concessi ons or other related ob ligations under the TRIPS 
Agreement, GATS and GATT 1994, pursuant to Artic le 22.2 of the DSU, in an amount of US$450 
million. At the DSB meeting on 19 November 1999, th e EC, pursuant to Article 22.6 of the DSU, 
requested arbitration on the level of suspensi on of concessions requested by Ecuador. The DSB 
referred the issue of the level of suspension to th e original panel for arbitration. Pursuant to 
Article 22.6 of the DSU, the request for the suspen sion of concessions by Ecuador was deferred by the 
DSB until the determination, through the arbitration, of the appropriate level for the suspension of concessions.  
Also at the DSB meeting on 19 November 1999, the EC  informed the DSB of its proposal for reform 
of the banana regime, which envisages a two-stage process, comprising a tariff rate quota system for several years. This system should then be replaced by a tariff only system no later than 1 January 2006. The proposal includes a decision to continue discussions with interested parties on the possible systems for distribution of licences for the tariff rate quota regime. If no feasible system can be found, 
the proposal for a transitional tariff rate quota regi me would not be maintain ed and negotiations under 
Article XXVIII of GATT 1994 would be envisaged to replace the current system with a tariff only 
regime. At the DSB meeting on 24 February 2000, the EC explained that there continued to be 
divergent views expressed by the main parties conc erned and that, as a result, no agreed conclusions 
could be reached.  
The arbitrator's report (on the Ecuadorian request for suspension of concessions) was circulated to 
Members on 24 March 2000. The arbitrators found that the level of nullification and impairment 
suffered by Ecuador amounted to US$201.6 million pe r year. The arbitrators found that Ecuador may 
request authorization by the DSB to suspend c oncessions or other obliga tions under GATT 1994 (not 
including investment goods or primary goods used as inputs in manufacturing and processing 
industries); under GATS with respect to "wholesale  trade services" (CPC 622) in the principal 
distribution services; and, to the extent that  suspension requested under GATT 1994 and GATS was 
insufficient to reach the level of nullification a nd impairment determined by the arbitrators, under 
TRIPS in the following sectors of that Agreement: Se ction 1 (copyright and re lated rights); Article 14 
on protection of performers, producers of phonogram s and broadcasting organisations), Section 3 
(geographical indications), Section 4 (industrial designs ). The arbitrators also noted that, pursuant to 
Article 22.3 of the DSU, Ecuador should first seek to suspend concessions or other obligations with 
respect to the same sectors as those in which the panel reconvened at the re quest of Ecuador pursuant 
to Article 21.5 of the DSU had found violations, i.e. GATT 1994 and the sector of distribution 
services under GATS. On 8 May 2000, Ecuador requested , pursuant to Article 22.7 of the DSU, that 
the DSB authorize the suspension of concessions to th e EC equivalent to the level of nullification and 
impairment, i.e. US$201.6 million. On 18 May 2 000, the DSB authorized Ecuador to suspend 
concessions to the European  Communities as requested. 
At the DSB meeting of 27 July 2000, the Eu ropean Communities stated with respect to 
implementation of the recommendations of the DS B that it had begun examining the possibility of 
managing the proposed tariff rate quotas on a first co me, first served basis because negotiations with 
interested parties on tariff rate quota allocation on the basis of traditional trade flows had reached an impasse. The European Communities also said that its examination would include a tariff only system 
and its implications. At the DSB meeting of 23 Oct ober 2000, the EC stated that it was finalizing its 
internal decision-making process with a view to impl ementing the new banana regime. To this effect, 
the EC considered that, during a transitional pe riod of time, its new ba nana regime should be 
regulated by the establishment of tariff-rate quotas a nd managed on the basis of a "first-come, first-
served" (FCFS) system. Before the end of tran sitional period of time, the EC would initiate 
Article XXVIII negotiations with a view to esta blishing a tariff-only system. On 1 March 2001, the  WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 233 
 
 
  EC reported to the DSB that on 29 January 2001, the Council of the European Union adopted 
Regulation (EC) No 216/2001 amendi ng Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 on the common organisation of 
the market in bananas. The modifications made  in Council Regulation 216/2001 provide for three 
tariff quotas open to all imports irrespective of thei r origin: (1) a first tariff quota of 2.200.000 tonnes 
at a rate of 75€/tonnes, bound under the WTO ; (2) a second autonomous quota of 353.000 tonnes at a 
rate of 75€/tonnes ; (3) a third autonomous quota of 850.000 tonnes at a rate of 300€/tonnes. Imports 
from ACP countries will enter duty-free. In view of contractual obligations towards these countries 
and the need to guarantee proper conditions of compe tition, they will benefit from a tariff preference 
limited to a maximum of 300€/tonnes . The tariff quotas are a transitional measure leading ultimately 
to a tariff-only regime. According to the EC, substa ntial progress has been achieved with respect to 
the implementing measures necessary to manage the three tariff rate quotas on the basis of the First-
come, First-served method.  
On 3 May 2001, the EC reported to the DSB that in tensive discussions with the US and Ecuador, as 
well as the other banana supplying countries, includ ing the other co-complainants, have led to the 
common identification of the means by which the long-standing dispute over the EC's bananas import 
regime will be resolved. In accordance with Article  16(1) of Regulation No (EC) 404/93 (as amended 
by Council Regulation No (EC) 216/2001), the EC will introduce a Tariff Only regime for imports of bananas no later than 1 January 2006. GATT Article XXVIII negotia tions will be initiated in good 
time to that effect. In the interim period, starti ng on 1 July 2001, the EC will implement an import 
regime based on three tariff rate quotas, to be allocated on the basis of historical licensing.  
On 22 June 2001, the EC notified an "Understanding on Bananas between the EC and the US" of 11 
April 2001, and an "Understanding on Bananas between the EC and Ecuador" of 30 April 2001. 
Pursuant to these Understandings with the US and Ecuador, the EC will implement an import regime 
on the basis of historical licensing as follows:  
1. effective 1 July 2001, the EC will implement an import regime on the basis of historical 
licensing as set out in annex to each of the Understandings;  
2. effective as soon as possible thereafter, subject  to Council and European Parliament approval 
and to adoption of an Article XIII waiver, the EC will implement an import regime on the basis of historical licensing as set out in annex to each of the Understandings.  
The Commission will seek to obtain the implementati on of such an import regime as soon as possible. 
Pursuant to its Understanding with the EC, the US,  
• upon implementation of the new import re gime described under (1) above, would 
provisionally suspend its imposition of the increased duties;  
• upon implementation of the new import regime described under (2) a bove, would terminate 
its imposition of the increased duties;  
• may reimpose the increased duties if the import re gime described under (2) does not enter into 
force by 1 January 2002; and  
• would lift its reserve concerning the waiver of  Article I of the GATT 1994 that the EC has 
requested for preferential access to the EC of goods  originating in ACP states signatory to the 
Cotonou Agreement; and will actively work towa rds promoting the acceptance of an EC 
request for a waiver of Article XIII of the GATT 1994 needed for the management of quota C 
under the import regime described under (2) above until 31 December 2005.  WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 234 
 
 
  Pursuant to its Understandi ng with the EC, Ecuador  
• took note that the European Commission will exam ine the trade in organic bananas and report 
accordingly by 31 December 2004;  
• upon implementation of the new import regime, Ecuador's right to suspend concessions or 
other obligations of a level not exceeding US$201 .6 million per year vis-à-vis the EC would 
be terminated;  
• Ecuador would lift its reserve concerning the waiver of Article I of the GATT 1994 that the 
EC has requested for preferential access to th e EC of goods originating in ACP states 
signatory to the Cotonou Agreement; and w ould actively work towards promoting the 
acceptance of an EC request for a waiver of  Article XIII of the GATT 1994 needed for the 
management of quota C under the import regi me described in paragraph C(2) until 31 
December 2005.  
The EC notified the Understandings as mutually satisfactory solutions within the meaning of 
Article 3.6 DSU. Both Ecuador and the US communi cated that the Understandings did not constitute 
mutually satisfactory solutions within the meaning of  Article 3.6 DSU and that it would be premature 
to take the item off the DSB agenda. At the DS B meeting on 25 September 2001, Ecuador made an 
oral statement whereby it criticised the Commiss ion proposal aimed at reforming the EC common 
organisation for bananas in order to  honour the above Understandings.  
On 4 October 2001, the EC circulated a status re port on the implementation where it indicated that it 
was continuing to work actively on the legal instruments required for the management of the three tariff quotas after 1 January 2002. In addition, the EC's report indicated that no progress had been 
made since the previous DSB meeting regarding the waiver request submitted by the EC and the ACP 
States. The EC further indicated th at in the event that no progress was made at the meeting of the 
Council of Trade in Goods scheduled for 5 October 2001, the EC and the ACP States would be forced 
to reassess the situation in all respects. At the DS B meeting on 15 October 2001, the EC recalled that 
the procedure for the examination of the waiver request had been unblocked at the meeting of the 
Council for Trade in Goods on 5 October 2001, and e xpressed its readiness to work and discuss with 
all interested parties in the course of this examinati on. Ecuador said that if the waiver was limited to 
what was required during the transitional import re gime then it could be granted quickly. Guatemala 
said that it would carefully follow the outcome of EC's actions and requested that the item should remain on the DSB agenda. Honduras noted that the EC had an obligation to describe the measures to 
be put in place after 2005. It also reiterated its c oncerns that the rights of developing countries were 
not being respected. Panama supported the statemen t by Honduras and urged the EC to take into 
account the concerns of Latin American banana ex porters. The US expressed satisfaction that the 
examination procedure of the waiver request had started and hoped that the process would be 
expeditious. Saint Lucia said that the statement by Honduras that the EC disregarded the rights of 
some developing countries was inaccurate. It welc omed the start of the examination procedure and 
hoped that any current differences would soon be resolved. At the DSB meeting on 5 November 2001, 
the EC informed that the Working Party to examin e the waiver requests submitted by the EC and ACP 
had made some progress. Ecuador said that tariff preferences to be applied by the EC would 
reproduce the same inconsistencies in the bana na import regime. Honduras indicated that it was 
necessary to ensure that the scope of the waiv er did not go beyond what was required for the 
implementation of the new regime. Panama said that even if the waiver was granted, the dispute 
would not be settled. 
At the DSB meeting on 18 December 2001, the EC welcomed the granting of the two waivers by the 
Ministerial Conference, which were the prerequisite for the implementation of phase II of the  WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 235 
 
 
  Understandings reached with the United States and Ecuador. The EC noted that the Regulation 
implementing phase II would be adopted on 19 Dece mber 2001, with effect on 1 January 2002. 
Ecuador, Honduras, Panama and Colombia noted th e progress made and sought information from the 
EC concerning the granting of import licences by one EC Member State in a manner that was 
inconsistent with the Understa ndings. On 21 January 2002, the EC announced that Regulation (EC) 
No. 2587/2001 had been adopted by the Council on 19  December 2001 and indicated that through this 
Regulation the EC had implemented phase 2 of th e Understandings with the US and Ecuador.  
On 30 November 2005, Honduras, Panama and Nicaragua  requested consultations with the European 
Communities under Article 21.5 of the DSU concer ning the measures recently adopted by the 
European Communities to address the requirements provided for by the Waiver adopted in Doha 
Ministerial in November 2001 with regard to bana na trade ("Doha Waiver"). The measures at issue 
are relevant provisions of the recently passed EC Council Regulation governing the import regime for 
banana. The measures at issues were adopted follo wing two Arbitrations under the Doha Waiver, both 
of which ruled against previous proposals by th e European Communities to address the same matter. 
According to the requests, the EC Council Regulati on is WTO-inconsistent in the following respects: 
• The 176€/mt MFN rate is inconsistent with the Doha Waiver in all its parts, the Arbitration Awards of 1 August and 27 October 2005, GATT Article XXVIII, and the Appellate Body report and the Panel report as modified  by the Appellate Body Report in EC-Bananas III .; and  
• The zero-duty ACP tariff quota of 775,000 mt and over-quota ACP tariff of 176€/mt are inconsistent with the Doha Waiver in all its parts, the Arbitration Awards of 1 August and 27 
October 2005, GATT Articles I and XIII, and the Appellate Body report and the Panel report 
as modified by the Appellate Body Report in EC-Bananas III . 
78. WT/DS26, WT/DS48 – European Communities – Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones) 
Complaints by the United States and Canada. On 8 April 1998, the respondent requested that the "reasonable period of time" for implementation of the recommendations and rulings of the DSB be 
determined by binding arbitration, pursuant to Artic le 21.3(c) of the DSU. The Arbitrator found the 
reasonable period of time for implementation to be  15 months from the date of adoption (i.e. 15 
months from 13 February 1998). The report of the Arbitrator was circulated to Members on 29 May 1998.  
The period for implementation was set by arbitration at 15 months from the date of the adoption of the 
reports i.e. it expired on 13 May 1999. The EC unde rtook to comply with the recommendations of the 
DSB within the implementation period. At the DS B meeting on 28 April 1999, the EC informed the 
DSB that it would consider offering compensation in view of the likelihood that it may not be able to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB by the deadline of 13 May 1999.  
On 3 June 1999, the United States and Canada, pursuant to Article 22.2 of the DSU, requested authorization from the DSB for the suspension of  concessions to the EC in the amount of US$202 
million and Can.$75 million, respectively. The EC, pursuant to Article 22.6 of the DSU, requested 
arbitration on the level of suspension of concessi ons requested by the United States and Canada. The 
DSB referred the issue of the level of suspen sion to the original panel for arbitration.  
The arbitrators determined the level of nullifica tion suffered by the United States to be equal to 
US$116.8 million, and the level of nullification suffere d by Canada to be equal to CDN$11.3 million. 
The report of the arbitrators was circulated to Members on 12 July 1999. At its meeting on 26 July 
1999, the DSB authorized the suspension of concessions  to the EC by the United States and Canada in WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 236 
 
 
  the respective amounts determined by the arbitrators as being equivalent to the level of nullification 
suffered by them.  
At the DSB meeting on 7 November 2003, the EC stated that following the entering into force of its 
new Directive (2003/74/EC) regarding the prohibition on the use in stockfarming of certain hormones, 
there was no legal basis for the continued impositi on of retaliatory measures by Canada and the US; 
one of the reasons cited by the Appellate Body in its  ruling against the EC was its failure to carry out 
a risk assessment within the meaning of Articl es 5.1 and 5.2 of the SPS Agreement; and, having 
commissioned such an assessment to be undertaken  on its behalf by an independent scientific 
committee whose findings indicated that the hormones in question posed a risk for consumers, the EC 
had fulfilled its WTO obligations and was entitled to demand the immediate lifting of the sanctions 
imposed by Canada and the US in accordance with th e provisions of Article 22.8 of the DSU. The US 
stated that they had carefully reviewed the new EC Directive and did not share the view that it 
implemented the recommendations and rulings of th e DSB. The new measure lacked any scientific 
basis and as such could not be justified under the SPS Agreement. Contrary to the EC's claim, a 
number of studies had found that there was no increased health risk from the consumption of meat 
from animals treated with growth-promoting hormones.  In the circumstances, the US was not in a 
position to accede to the request by the EC. Canada said that while his country was prepared to 
discuss this matter further with the EC, it doubt ed whether the new studies presented any new 
scientific basis for the ban of hormone-treated beef, and was also not in a position to accede to the request of the EC. The EC responded that on the basis of the negative position expressed by the US 
and Canada, it would reflect on the appropriate actions  that would be necessary in order to preserve its 
rights under the WTO agreements.  
At the DSB meeting on 1 December 2003, the EC stated  that: in light of the disagreement between the 
parties to the dispute with regard to the EC's compliance with the DSB's recommendations, the matter 
should be referred to the WTO for a multilateral deci sion; this situation was similar to other cases, 
which had been resolved in the past through recourse  to Article 21.5 of the DSU; Canada and the US 
should initiate multilateral procedures to determine whether or not th e EC was in compliance; the EC 
stood ready to discuss this matter with Canada and th e United States. Canada stated that, although at 
the 7 November DSB meeting, Canada had put forward a suggestion for bilateral discussions 
concerning the justification for the EC's position re garding its compliance with the WTO ruling, the 
EC had not responded to this suggestion; it was up to  the EC to establish that it had complied with the 
WTO ruling; Canada continued to be open to discussi ons with the EC regarding its justification for its 
position; at this stage, Canada did not see any basis for removal of its retaliatory measures nor wished 
to take any other action. The US stated that: the US failed to see how the revised EC measure could be 
considered to implement the DSB's recommendations ; with regard to the EC's suggestion that 
multilateral proceedings be established to determine whether or not the EC was in compliance with 
the WTO rulings, the US was read y to discuss this matter along with other outstanding issues in 
relation to the EC's ban on US beef.  
79. WT/DS24 – United States – Restrictions on Imports of Cotton and Man-made Fibre 
Underwear 
Complaint by Costa Rica. At the meeting of the DSB on 10 April 1997, the US informed the meeting that the measure which had been the subject of th is dispute had expired on 27 March 1997 and had not 
been renewed, effectively meaning that the US had immediately complied with the recommendations 
of the DSB.  WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 237 
 
 
  80. WT/DS18 – Australia – Measures Affecting the Importation of Salmon 
Complaint by Canada. At the DSB meeting on 25 Nove mber 1998, Australia informed the DSB that it 
was committed to implementing the recommendations of the DSB and was looking forward to 
discussing with the complainants the question of implementation.  
On 24 December 1998, Canada requested arbitration, pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, to 
determine the reasonable period of time for implem entation of the recommendations of the DSB. The 
Arbitrator decided that the reasonable period of time  for implementation was 8 months i.e. it expired 
on 6 July 1999. The report of the Arbitrator was circulated to Members on 23 February 1999. On 28 
July 1999, Canada made a request to the DSB, pursu ant to Article 22.2 of the DSU, for authorization 
to suspend concessions to Australia for its non-comp liance with the recommendations of the DSB in 
this matter. Canada simultaneously made a request , pursuant to DSU Article 21.5, for determination 
by the original panel of whether the measu res taken by Australia in implementing the 
recommendations of the DSB were WTO-consistent.  
Australia informed the DSB that in the event that the DSB approve d Canada's request under 22.2, it 
wished to request, pursuant to DSU 22.6, for arbitration on the level of nullification suffered by 
Canada. The DSB agreed to Canada's request and referred the matter for determination of the WTO-
consistency of the implementing measures to the original panel. The EC, Norway and the US reserved their third-party rights. The DSB also referred the Canadian request for suspension of concessions to 
arbitration in view of Australia's challenge of the level of nullification suffered by Canada. On 7 September 1999, the Compliance Panel and Arbitrat or were composed. On 18 February 2000, the 
report of the DSU Article 21.5 panel was circulat ed to Members. At its meeting on 20 March 2000, 
the DSB adopted the report of the compliance panel.  
81. WT/DS8, WT/DS10, WT/DS11 – Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages 
Complaints by the European Communities, Canada and the United States. On 24 December 1996, the 
US, pursuant to Article 21(3)(c) of the DSU app lied for binding arbitration to determine the 
reasonable period of time for implementation by Japan of the recommendations of the Appellate 
Body.  
The Arbitrator's report was circulated to memb ers on 14 February 1997. The Arbitrator found the 
reasonable period for implementation of the recommendations to be 15 months from the date of adoption of the reports i.e. it expired on 1 February 1998. Japan presented modalities for 
implementation which were accepted by the complainants.  
82. WT/DS2, WT/DS4 – United States – Standa rds for Reformulated and Conventional 
Gasoline 
Complaints by Venezuela and Brazil. The US a nnounced implementation of the recommendations of 
the DSB as of 19 August 1997, at the end of the 15 month reasonable period of time. 
VII. SETTLED OR INACTIVE CASES 
A. MUTUALLY AGREED SOLUTIONS NOTIFIED UNDER ARTICLE  3.6 OF THE DSU 
1. WT/DS329 – Panama – Tariff Classification of Certain Milk Products 
Complaint by Mexico. On 16 March 2005, Mexico  has requested consultations with Panama 
regarding its Cabinet Decree N. 20 of 17 July 2 002 which creates two new tariff subheadings in WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 238 
 
 
  Panama's National Importation No menclature. According to Mexico, this Decree eliminates the 
existing tariff subheading No. 1901.10.10 for processed milk to which a 5% bound tariff applied 
pursuant to Panama's WTO Bindings. The Decree further created two new subheadings: No.1901.10.11 (baby formula) with a 0% tariff, a nd No. 1901.10.19 (all others) with a 65% tariff.  
Mexico considers that Panama's new tariff cl assification for those milk products may violate 
Articles I, II and XXVIII of GATT 1994  and Article 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture .  
In addition, Mexico raises a non-violation claim: Me xico claims that the application of the new tariff 
classification by Panama nullifies or impede, in the sense of Article XXIII.1(b) of the GATT 1994 , the 
tariff concessions that Panama granted to Mexico  for processed milk (5% consolidated tariff) as a 
result of its accession to the WTO. 
On 20 September 2005, the parties to the dispute jo intly informed the DSB that they had reached a 
mutually agreed solution regarding the matters raised by Mexico in its request for consultations.  
2. WT/DS327 – Egypt – Anti-Dumping Duties on Matches from Pakistan 
Complaint by Pakistan. On 21 February 2005, Pakist an requested consultations with Egypt regarding 
definitive anti-dumping duties imposed by Egypt on matches in boxes from Pakistan pursuant to 
Decree No. 667/2003 of 18 November 2003, as well as any amendments or extensions thereof. 
According to Pakistan, these measures appear to be  inconsistent with Egypt 's obligations under the 
GATT 1994  and the Anti-Dumping Agreement .  
In particular, Pakistan considers that the impositi on of these anti-dumping duties and the investigation 
leading thereto violate the following provisions:  
• Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of GATT 1994 ;  
• Articles 1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.2.1.1, 2.2.2, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 6.1.3, 6.2, 6.4, 6.5, 6.5.1, 6.5.2, 6.6, 6.8 read with Annex II, 6.9, 6.13, 12.2, 12.2.2 and 18 of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement . 
On 9 June 2005, Pakistan requested the establishmen t of a panel. At its m eeting on 20 June 2005, the 
DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. At its  meeting on 20 July 2005, the DSB established a 
panel. China, the European Communities, Japan and the United St ates reserved their third-party 
rights. 
On 27 March 2006, Pakistan and Egypt informed the DSB that they had reached a mutually agreed 
solution under Article 3.6 of the DSU in the fo rm of price undertaking agreements between the 
concerned Pakistani exporters and the Egyptian Investigating Authority.  
3. WT/DS323 – Japan – Import Quotas on Dried Laver and Seasoned Laver 
Complaint by Korea. On 1 December 2004, Korea requested consultations with Japan concerning 
Japan's import quotas on dried laver and seasoned laver. According to the request for consultations, Korea believes that Japan's extremely restrictive import quotas on dried laver and seasoned laver are 
inconsistent with, 
inter alia ,:  
• Articles X.3 and XI of the GATT 1994;  
• Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture; and   WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 239 
 
 
  • Article 1.2 and 1.6 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures.  
On 4 February 2005, Korea request ed the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 17 February 
2005, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 21 March 2005, the DSB 
established the panel. China, the European Communities and the United States reserved their third party rights. On 31 March 2005, New Zealand reserved its third party rights. On 18 May 2005, Korea 
requested the Director-General to compose the panel. On 30 May 2005, the Director-General 
composed the panel. 
On 30 November 2005, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that it would not be possible for the Panel to complete its work in six months and that the Panel expected to complete it work by March 2006.  This extension was caused by schedu ling difficulties and by the need to allow the 
parties sufficient time to submit evidence and to comment on evidence submitted by each other. 
On 23 January 2006, Korea and Japan informed the DSB of a mutually agreed solution under Article 3.6 of the DSU.  A brief panel report no ting the settlement was circulated to Members on 1 
February 2006, in accordance with the provisions of Article 12.7 of the DSU. 
4. WT/DS313 – European Communities – Anti-Dum ping Duties on Certain Flat Rolled 
Iron or Non-Alloy Steel Products from India 
Complaint by India. On 5 July 2004, India request ed consultations with the European Communities 
concerning the imposition of definitive anti-dumpi ng measures on imports of certain flat rolled 
products of iron or non-alloy steel, of a width of 600 mm or more, not clad, plated or coated, in coils, not further worked than hot-rolled ("HR Coils") from India.  
According to the Indian request, the EC violates Article 9.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, which 
requires that an anti-dumping duty shall be collect ed on a non-discriminatory basis on imports of the 
product from all sources found to be dumped and causing injury. India claims that, while anti-
dumping measures are in force against imports into the Community of HR Coils from India, no measures are in force against imports of the same product concerned from Egypt, Slovakia and Turkey, notwithstanding that the products imported from the latter three countries were also found by 
the Commission to be dumped and causing injury to the Community industry.  
India also considers that the anti-dumping measures concerned violate certain other provision of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, including, but not limited to the following: Article 3, especially Articles 3.4 and 3.5; and Article 4.1.  
On 22 October 2004, India and the European Commun ities notified the DSB that they had reached an 
agreement with respect to the matter raised by Indi a in its request for consultations. According to the 
notification, the European Communities agr eed to terminate the measure at issue. 
5. WT/DS309 – China – Value-Added Tax on Integrated Circuits 
Complaint by the United States. On 18 March 2004, the United States requested consultations with 
China concerning China's preferential value-adde d tax ("VAT") for domestically-produced or 
designed integrated circuits ("IC").  
The United States claims that, although China provides for a 17 percent VAT on ICs, enterprises in China are entitled to a partial refund of the VAT on ICs that they have produced, resulting in a lower VAT rate on their products. In the US view, China thus appears to be subjecting imported ICs to WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 240 
 
 
  higher taxes than applied to domestically produced  ICs and to be according less favourable treatment 
to imported ICs.  
In addition, the United States claims that China al lows for a partial refund of VAT for domestically 
designed ICs that, because of technological limitations , are manufactured outside of China. In the US 
view, China thus appears to be providing for more  favourable treatment of imports from one Member 
than from others, and also is discriminating agains t services and service suppliers of other Members.  
The United States considers that these measures are inconsistent with the obligations of China under 
Articles I and III of the GATT 1994, the Protocol on the Accession of the People's Republic of China 
(WT/L/432), and Article XVII of the GATS.  
On 26 March 2004, the European Communities request ed to join the consultations. On 31 March 
2004, Japan requested to join the consultations. On  1 April 2004, Mexico and the Separate Customs 
Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu re quested to join the consultations. On 28 April 
2004, China informed the DSB that it had accepted the requests of the European Communities, Japan 
and Mexico to join the consultations.  
On 14 July 2004, China and the United States notifie d the DSB that they had reached an agreement 
with respect to the matter raised by the United States  in its request for consultations. According to the 
notification, China agreed to amend or revoke the measures at issue to eliminate the availability of 
VAT refunds on ICs produced and sold in China and on on ICs designed in China but manufactured 
abroad by 1 November 2004 and 1 September 2004 resp ectively. The effective dates are 1 April 2005 
and 1 October 2004 respectively. 
On 5 October 2005, China and the United States inform ed the DSB that they were in agreement that 
the terms of the agreement had been successfully implemented, and thus they had agreed that a 
mutually satisfactory solution had been reached to  the matter raised by the United States.   
6. WT/DS305 – Egypt – Measures Affecting Imports of Textile and Apparel Products 
Complaint by the United States. On 23 December 2003, the United States requested consultations with Egypt concerning the tariffs applied by Egyp t to certain textile and apparel products and the 
Decree of the President of the Arab Republic of Egypt No. 469 of the year 2001 ("Decree No. 469") and any amendments, related regulations  or other implementing measures.  
The United States alleges that, in the Uruguay Round, Egypt agreed that: (a) it would remove a general prohibition on the importati on of apparel and made  up textile products by  January 1, 2002; (b) 
it would bind its duties under HS Chapters 61 (artic les of apparel and clothi ng, knitted and crocheted) 
and 62 (articles of apparel and clothi ng, not knitted or crocheted) at an 
ad valorem  rate of 46 percent 
in 2003, 43 percent in 2004 and 40 percent therea fter, and (c) it would bind its duties under HS 
Chapter 63 (other made up textile articles; sets; worn clothing) at an ad valorem  rate of 41 percent in 
2003, 38 percent in 2004, and 35 percent thereafter.  
The United States alleges that, on December 31, 2001 Egypt issued Decree No. 469 which amended 
the customs duties applicable to a number of impor ted articles, including articles that enter under HS 
Chapters 61, 62 and 63, and imposed specific duties ( i.e., in Egyptian pounds per piece of clothing), 
rather than ad valorem  duties. The United States alleges that these specific duties greatly exceed 
Egypt's bound rates of duty. According to the United States, the ad valorem  equivalent of these duties 
ranges from 141 percent to 51,296 percent. The United States considers that th ese tariffs, Decree No. 
469 and any related measures are inconsistent with the obligations of Egypt under Article II of the 
GATT 1994 and Article 7 of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing.  WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 241 
 
 
  On 15 January 2004, the European Communities requ ested to join the consultations. On 22 January 
2004, Egypt accepted the request.  
On 20 May 2005, Egypt and the United States informed the DSB that they had reached a mutually 
agreed solution under Article 3.6 of the DSU. 
7. WT/DS261 – Uruguay – Tax Treatment on Certain Products 
Complaint by Chile. On 18 June 2002, Chile requested consultations with Urugua y with regard to the 
tax treatment applied by the latter to certain products.  
In particular, Chile referred to Uruguay's Inte rnal Specific Tax ("IMESI") which taxes the first 
alienation and the importation by non-taxpa yers of certain goods which include, inter alia , beverages 
(alcoholic beverages, juices, mineral water), tobacco and cigarettes, automobiles, lubricants and fuel. 
The fiscal framework for the IMESI is contained in various legal instruments, including Chapter 11 of the 1996 "Texto Ordenado", Decree 96/990 of 21 February 1990 from the Ministry of Economy and Finance, and the bi-monthly Resolutions of the Direction General for Taxation. This framework was recently amended as regards cigarettes by Decree 200/2002 of 3 June 2002.  
Chile contended that, in most cases, taxable income for this tax is determined by using a fictitious 
price. According to Chile, this system would increase the taxable income if compared to the real sales price, especially in the case of fo reign goods. Chile submits that the IMESI violates Articles I and III 
of GATT 1994 because it establishes a tax system based  on the use of fictitious prices in order to 
determine the taxable income. Chile considered that  this system discriminates between national and 
imported products and, in some cases, between im ported products depending on their origin. Chile 
further claimed that this alleged discrimination constitutes a 
de facto  import prohibition as regards 
certain products.  
Chile recalled that in the trade policy review for Uruguay in 1998, this system was subject to some 
discussion and Uruguay indicated, at the time, that they were in the process of elaborating norms that ensured an equal treatment to all pr oducts regardless of their origin.  
On 4 July 2002, the European Co mmunities requested to join the consultations. On 5 July 2002, 
Mexico requested to join the consultations. On 3 April 2003, Chile requested the DSB to establish a panel. At its meeting on 15 April 2003, the DSB deferred the establishment of the panel. Further to a second request by Chile, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 19 May 2003. The EC, Mexico and the US reserved their third-party rights. On 4 July 2003, the Panel was composed. On 15 August 
2003, the Chair of the Panel informed the DSB that both parties had jointly requested the Panel to suspend its work for a period of 60 days, until 12 Oc tober 2003. The Panel has agreed to this request 
and is suspending its work from 14 August to 12 October 2003. On 12 October 2003, both parties jointly requested the Panel to extend the suspension of its work for another 60 days, until 11 December 2003. The Panel agreed to this request a nd was continuing to suspend its work until 11 
December 2003. On 11 December 2003, both parties jo intly requested the Panel to suspend its work 
for a final additional period of 30 days, until 10 January  2004, in order to formalize a mutually agreed 
solution over the coming days and notify it to the Dispute Settlement Body, in accordance with 
Article 3.6 of the DSU. The Panel agreed to this request and is suspending its work from 12 December 2003 to 10 January 2004.  
On 8 January 2004, Chile and Uruguay informed the DSB that they had reached a mutually agreed 
solution under Article 3, paragraphs 5 and 6 of the DSU. WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 242 
 
 
  8. WT/DS250 – United States – Equalizing Ex cise Tax Imposed by Florida on Processed 
Orange and Grapefruit Products 
Complaint by Brazil. On 20 March 2002, Brazil requ ested consultations with the US concerning the 
so-called "Equalizing Excise Tax" imposed by the St ate of Florida on processed orange and grapefruit 
products produced from citrus fruit grown outside the United States (Section 601.155 Florida 
Statutes). Brazil indicated that since 1970, the st ate of Florida had imposed, pursuant to section 
601.155 of the Florida Statutes, an "equalizing excise tax" on processed orange and processed 
grapefruit products, in amounts determined by the Florida Department of Citrus. However, the statute 
by its terms – Section 601.155(5), Florida Statutes – exempted from the tax products "produced in 
whole or in part from citrus fruit grown within the United States." In the view of Brazil the incidence 
of this tax on imported processed citrus products and not on domestic  products on its face constituted 
a violation of Articles II:1(a), III.1 and III:2 of GATT 1994.  
Brazil contended that the impact of the Florida e qualizing excise tax had been to provide protection 
and support to domestic processed citrus products and to restrain the importation of processed citrus 
products into Florida. Since processed citrus products, principally in the form of frozen concentrated 
orange juice were among Brazil's most significant expor ts to the United States, Brazil was of the view 
that the restraint on their importation by the State of  Florida constituted a nullification and impairment 
of benefits accruing to Brazil under GATT 1994. Brazil reserved the right to raise additional factual or 
legal points related to the aforementioned measure during the course of consultations.  
On 16 August 2002, Brazil requested the establishmen t of the panel. At its meeting on 30 August 
2002, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish a panel 
by Brazil, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 1 October 2002. The EC, Mexico and 
Paraguay reserved their third party rights to participate in the panel proceedings. On 11 October 2002, Chile reserved its third party rights to participate in the panel proceedings.  
On 28 May 2004, the United States and Brazil informed  the DSB that they had reached a mutually 
agreed solution under Article 3.6 of the DSU. 
9. WT/DS245 – Japan – Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples 
(See also Sections V and VI).  Complaint by the United States. 
On 30 August 2005, the parties to the dispute join tly informed the DSB that they had reached a 
mutually agreed solution regarding the matters raised by the United States in this dispute. 
10. WT/DS237 – Turkey – Certain Import Procedures for Fresh Fruit 
Complaint by Ecuador. On 31 August 2001, Ecuador requested consultations with Turkey concerning 
certain import procedures for fresh fruits and, in particular, bananas. The procedure requires, 
according to Ecuador, the issuance by the Turkish Ministry of Agriculture of a document, known as "Kontrol Belgesi". Ecuador explained that this procedure is established under the "Communiqué for 
Standardization in Foreign Trade" published by the Under-Secretariat of Foreign Trade in the Official 
Journal 24271 of 25 December 2000 (Annex 1 thereof).  Ecuador alleged that this procedure, as 
applied by the Turkish authorities, is a barrier to trade which is inconsistent with the obligations of Turkey under GATT 1994, the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures, the Agreement on Agriculture and the GATS. In particular, Ecuador considered that th e provisions of the WTO agreements with which 
Turkey's "Kontrol Belgesi" procedure appears to  be inconsistent include the following:   WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 243 
 
 
  • Articles II, III, VIII, X and XI of the GATT 1994;  
• Articles 2.3 and 8 and Annexes B and C of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary Measures  
• Paragraphs 2, 3, 5 and 6 of Article 1 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures;  
• Article 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture; and  
• Articles VI and XVII of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS).  
On 20 September 2001, the EC requested to be joined in the consultations.  
On 14 June 2002, Ecuador requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 24 June 2002, the 
DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Fu rther to a second request by Ecuador, the DSB 
established a panel at its meeting on 29 July 2002.  During the meeting, Ecuador also requested the 
DSB to suspend the composition of the Panel as the parties were engaged in consultations to find a 
mutually satisfactory solution to the dispute between them. The EC and the US reserved their third-
party rights. On 7 August 2002, Colombia requested third party rights.  
On 22 November 2002, the parties to the dispute informed the DSB that they had found a mutually agreed solution to their dispute. 
11. WT/DS235 – Slovakia – Safeguard Measure on Imports of Sugar 
Complaint by Poland. On 11 July 2001, Poland requ ested consultations with Slovakia concerning the 
quantitative restrictions imposed by Slovakia on  imports of sugar (tariff heading 1701). The 
imposition of the measure in question was notified to the Committee on Safeguards and circulated in document G/SG/N/10/SVK/1. Poland considered that this safeguard measure has been imposed in a 
manner inconsistent with Slovakia's obligations under the Safeguards Agreement. According to 
Poland, it appeared that Slovak authorities acted in consistently with various provisions of the 
Safeguards Agreement, namely, Article  3.1, Article 4.2(b), Article 5.2( a), Article 7.4, Article 12.1(b), 
Article 12.1(c) and Article 12.3  
Poland considered that the investigation and th e safeguard measure imposed have nullified or 
impaired the benefits accruing to Poland directly  or indirectly under the Safeguards Agreement.  
On 11 January 2002, the parties notified the DSB that  they have reached a mutually agreed solution 
within the meaning of Article 3.6 of the DSU. A ccordingly, Slovakia agreed to a progressive increase 
of the level of its quota for imports of sugar fro m Poland between 2002 and 2004, and Poland agreed 
to remove its quantitative restriction on imports of butter and margarine. Both parties agreed to implement the above by 1 January 2002. 
12. WT/DS231 – European Communities – Trade Description of Sardines 
(See also Sections V and VI above). Complaint by Peru.  
On 25 July 2003, the European Communities and Peru informed the DSB that they had reached a mutually agreed solution pursuant  to Article 3.6 of the DSU. WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 244 
 
 
  13. WT/DS210 – Belgium – Administration of Measures Establishing Customs Duties for 
Rice 
Request by the United States. On 12 October 2000, the US requested consultations with the EC concerning the administration by Belgium of laws  and regulations establishing the customs duties 
applicable to rice imported from the United States. The United States considered that:  
• Belgium has failed to administer the pertinent laws and regulations in a manner that is consistent with its WTO obligations, leading to the assessment of duties on rice imported from the United States in excess of the bound rate of  duty, in contravention of Article II of the 
GATT 1194;  
• Belgium's use of reference prices in the calcu lation of the applicable import duties would 
appear to be inconsistent with Article V II of the GATT 1994 and the Customs Valuation 
Agreement;  
• Belgium's refusal to recognize widely accepted industry standards associated with the grading 
of rice appears to be inconsistent with Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 9 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade;  
• Belgium has failed to administer its customs va luation determinations and its assessment of 
tariffs in a transparent manner, thereby impe ding trade, and appears to have applied the 
measures in a manner that discriminates against rice imported from the United States.  
• According to the United States, the measures have  restricted imports of rice into Belgium. 
Thus, the Belgian measures also appear to be in consistent with Articles I, X and XI of the 
GATT 1994 and Article 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
• According to the United States, Belgium's measu res appear to be inconsistent with the 
following specific provisions of the identified agreements: Articles I, II, VII, VIII, X and XI of the GATT 1994; Articles 1-6, 7, 10, 14, 16 and Annex I of the Customs Valuation Agreement; Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of th e Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade; 
Article 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture. Be lgium's measures also appear to nullify or 
impair the benefits accruing to the United Stat es directly or indirectly under the cited 
agreements.  
On 19 January 2001, the US requested the establishm ent of a panel. At its meeting on 1 February 
2001, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish a panel 
by the US, the DSB established a panel at its me eting of 12 March 2001. India and Japan reserved 
their third-party rights. On 29 May 2001, the US requested the Director-Gen eral to determine the 
composition of the Panel. On 7 June 2001, the Panel was composed.  
On 26 July 2001, the US requested the Panel, pursuant to Article 12.12 of the DSU, to suspend its work until 30 September 2001 in light of on-going consultations between the US and the EC. On 27 
September, the US requested a further suspensi on of the Panel from 1 to 9 October 2001. On 9 
October, the US requested to further suspend th e work of the Panel until 1 November 2001. On 1 
November, the US requested to further suspend the work of the Panel until 16 November 2001. On 19 November 2001, the US requested the Panel to  suspend its work until 30 November 2001.  
On 18 December 2001, the US and the EC informed th e DSB that they had reached a mutually agreed 
solution pursuant to Article 3.6 of the DSU.  WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 245 
 
 
  14. WT/DS199 – Brazil – Measures Affecting Patent Protection 
Complaint by the United States. On 30 May 2000, the US requested consultations with Brazil in 
respect of those provisions of Brazil's 1996 industr ial property law (Law No. 9,279 of 14 May 1996; 
effective May 1997) and other related measures, which establish a "local working" requirement for 
the enjoyability of exclusive patent rights. The US  asserts that the "local working" requirement can 
only be satisfied by the local production – and not the importation – of the patented subject-matter. 
More specifically, the US noted that Brazil's "local working" requirement stipulates that a patent shall 
be subject to compulsory licensing if the subject-matte r of the patent is not "worked" in the territory 
of Brazil. The US further noted that Brazil explicitly defines "failure to be worked" as "failure to manufacture or incomplete manufacture of the product" or "failure to make full use of the patented 
process". The US considered that such a requirement  is inconsistent with Brazil's obligations under 
Articles 27 and 28 of the TRIPS Agreement, and Article III of the GATT 1994.  
At its meeting of 1 February 2001, the DSB est ablished a panel. Cuba, the Dominican Republic, 
Honduras, India and Japan reserved their third party ri ghts. On 5 July 2001, the parties to the dispute 
notified to the DSB a mutually satisfactory solution on the matter.  
15. WT/DS198 – Romania – Measures on Minimum Import Prices 
Complaint by the United States. On 30 May 2000, th e US requested consultations with Romania in 
respect of Romania's use of minimum import prices for customs valuation purposes. The measures at 
issue were the Customs Code of 1997 (L141/1997), the Ministry of Finance General Customs Directive (Ordinance No. 5, 4 August 1998), and ot her related statutes and regulations. The United 
States asserted that, pursuant to these measures, Romania has established arbitrary minimum and 
maximum import prices for such products as meat, e ggs, fruits and vegetables, clothing, footwear, and 
certain distilled spirits. The United States further asserted that Romania has instituted burdensome procedures for investigating import prices when the c.i.f. value falls below the minimum import price. The United States considered that Romania's measures are inconsistent with its obligations under Articles 1 through 7, and 12 of the Customs Valuation Agreement; general notes 1, 2 and 4 of Annex 
1 of the Customs Valuation Agreement; Articles II, X, and XI of the GATT 1994; Article 4.2 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture; and Articles 2 and 7 of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing.  
On 26 September 2001, the US and Romania informed  the DSB that they had reached a mutually 
satisfactory solution pursuant to Article 3.6 of the DSU.  
16. WT/DS196 – Argentina – Certain Measures on the Protection of Patents and Test Data 
Complaint by the United States. On 30 May 2000, the US requested consultations with Argentina 
concerning Argentina's legal regimes governing pa tents in Law 24,481 (as amended by Law 24,572), 
Law 24,603, and Decree 260/96; and data protecti on in Law 24,766 and Regulation 440/98, and in 
other related measures. The US considered that Argentina:  
• fails to protect against unfair commercial use of  undisclosed test or other data, submitted as a 
requirement for market approval of pharmaceutical or agricultural chemical products;  
• improperly excludes certain subject matter, including micro organisms, from patentability;  
• fails to provide prompt and effective provisi onal measures, such as preliminary injunctions, 
for purposes of preventing infringements of patent rights from occurring;  WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 246 
 
 
  • denies certain exclusive rights for patents, su ch as the protection of products produced by 
patented processes and the right of importation;  
• fails to provide certain safeguards for the granting of compulsory licenses, including timing 
and justification safeguards for compulsory licenses granted on the basis of inadequate 
working;  
• improperly limits the authority of its judiciary to  shift the burden of proof in civil proceedings 
involving the infringements of process patent rights; and  
• places impermissible limitations on certain transitional patents so as to limit the exclusive rights conferred by these patents, and to deny the opportunity for patentees to amend pending applications in order to claim certain enhanced  protection provided by the TRIPS Agreement.  
According to the US, Argentina's legal regimes gov erning patents and data protection are therefore 
inconsistent with Argentina's obligations under th e TRIPS Agreement, including Articles 27, 28, 31, 
34, 39, 50, 62, 65 and 70 of the Agreement.  
On 31 May 2002, the US and Argentina notified the DS B that they have reached an agreement on all 
of the matters raised by the US in its requests for consultations regarding this dispute and that 
concerning Argentina – Patent Protection for Ph armaceuticals and Test Data Protection for 
Agricultural Chemicals (WT/DS171). 
17. WT/DS190 – Argentina – Transitional Safeguard Measures on Certain Imports of 
Woven Fabric Products of Cotton and Cotton Mixtures Originating in Brazil 
Complaint by Brazil. This request for a panel,  dated 11 February 2000,  concerns transitional 
safeguard measures applied by Argentina, as of 31 Ju ly 1999, against certain imports of woven fabrics 
of cotton and cotton mixtures originating in Braz il. The measures at issue were applied through 
Resolution MEyOSP 861/99 of the Ministry of the Economy and Public Works and Services of Argentina. In accordance with Article 6.11 of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing, Brazil had referred the matter to the Textiles Monitoring Bo dy (TMB) for review and recommendations, after 
consultations requested earlier by Argentina had fa iled to produce a mutually satisfactory solution. At 
its meeting of 18-22 October 1999, the TMB conduct ed a review of the measures implemented by 
Argentina, having recommended that Argentina rescind the safeguard measures applied against 
imports from Brazil. On 29 November 1999, in accordance with Article 8.10 of the Agreement on 
Textiles and Clothing, Argentina notified the TMB that it considered itself unable to conform with the 
recommendations issued by the TMB. At its meeting of 13-14 December 1999, the TMB conducted a 
review of the reasons given by Argentina and r ecommended that Argentina reconsider its position. 
The TMB's recommendations notwithstanding, the matte r remained unresolved. Brazil is of the view 
that the transitional safeguards applied by Argentin a are inconsistent with Argentina's obligations 
under Articles 2.4, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.7, 6.8, 6.11, 8.9 and 8.10 of the Agreement on Textiles and 
Clothing and should, therefore, be rescinded forthwith.  
At its meeting on 20 March 2000, the DSB establishe d a panel. The EC, Pakistan, Paraguay and the 
US reserved their third-party rights. In a commun ication dated June 2000, the parties notified a 
mutually agreed solution to this dispute. Pursuant to the agreement reached, Brazil retains the right to 
resume the procedures for the composition of the pa nel from the point where they stood at the time 
the agreement was reached.  WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 247 
 
 
  18. WT/DS171 – Argentina – Patent Protection for Pharmaceuticals and Test Data 
Protection for Agricultural Chemicals 
Complaint by the United States. On 6 May 1999, the US requested consultations with Argentina in respect of  
(i) the alleged absence in Argentina of either pate nt protection for pharmaceutical products or an 
effective system for providing exclusive marketing rights in such products, and  
(ii) Argentina's alleged failure to ensure that ch anges in its laws, regulati ons and practice during the 
transition period provided under Article 65.2 of the TRIPS Agreement do not result in a lesser degree of consistency with the provisi ons of the TRIPS Agreement.  
Under item (i), the US contended that the TRI PS Agreement does not permit WTO Members to allow 
third parties to market products subject to exclusive marketing rights without the consent of the right holder. According to the United States, Argentina's law does not provide product patent protection for 
pharmaceutical inventions, or a system that conforms  to Article 70.9 of the TRIPS Agreement with 
regard to the grant of exclusive marketing rights. The US therefore contended that Argentina's legal 
regime appears to be inconsistent with Ar ticles 27, 65 and 70 of the TRIPS Agreement.  
Under item (ii), the US contended that prior to Au gust 1998, Argentina provided a ten year term of 
protection against unfair commercial use for undiscl osed test data or other data submitted to 
Argentine regulatory authorities in support of applications for marketing approval for agricultural chemical products. The US further alleged that since the issuance in 1998 of Regulation 440/98, which 
inter alia  revoked earlier regulations, Argentina has pr ovided no effective protection for such 
data against unfair commercial use. The United States therefore alleges that Argentina's legal regime 
is inconsistent with Article 65.5 of the TRIPS Agreement.  
On 31 May 2002, the US and Argentina notified the DS B that they have reached an agreement on all 
of the matters raised by the US in its requests for consultations regarding this dispute and that concerning Argentina – Certain Measures on the Protection of Patents and Test Data (WT/DS196). 
19. WT/DS151 – United States – Measures Affecting Textiles and Apparel Products (ll) 
Complaint by the European Communities. This dis pute, dated 19 November 1998, is in respect of 
alleged changes to US rules of origin for textil es and apparel products. The EC discloses that this 
issue was the subject of an earlier request for consultations (WT/DS85), in respect of which a 
mutually agreed solution was notified to the DSB, pursuant to Article 3.1 of the DSU. However, the EC contends that the US has not implemented its commitments as contained in that agreement with 
the result that, in the EC view, the US is still acting in a manner inc onsistent with its  obligations under 
the WTO. The dispute concerns changes allegedly in troduced by the US to its rules of origin for 
textiles and apparel products, which entered into force on 1 July 1996, which changes adversely affect exports of EC textile products to the US, in that as  a result of these changes EC products are allegedly 
no longer recognised in the US as being of EC origin. The EC alleges violations of Articles 2.4, 4.2 and 4.4 of the ATC, Article 2 of the Agreement on Rules of Origin, Article III of GATT 1994, and 
Article 2 of the TBT Agreement. In a communicat ion dated 21 July 2000, the parties notified a 
mutually agreed solution to this dispute. WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 248 
 
 
  20. WT/DS125 – Greece – Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights for Motion Pictures 
and Television Programs 
Complaint by the United States. This request, dated 30 April 1998, is in respect of the same measures 
raised against the EC above (DS124). On 20 March 2 001, the parties to the dispute notified a mutually 
satisfactory solution on the matter to the DSB.  
21. WT/DS124 – European Communities – Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights for motion pictures and television programs 
Complaint by the United States. This request, date d 30 April 1998, is in respect of the lack of 
enforcement of intellectual property rights in Greece. The US claims that a significant number of TV stations in Greece regularly broadcast copyrighte d motion pictures and television programs without 
the authorization of copyright owners. The US c ontends that effective remedies against copyright 
infringement do not appear to be provided or enfor ced in Greece in respect of these broadcasts. The 
US alleges a violation of Articles 41 and 61 of the TRIPS Agreement. On 20 March 2001, the parties to the dispute notified a mutually satisfactory solution on the matter to the DSB. 
22. WT/DS119 – Australia – Anti-Dumping Measures on Imports of Coated Woodfree 
Paper Sheets 
Complaint by Switzerland. This request, dated 20 Februa ry 1998, is in respect of the provisional anti-
dumping measures applied on the imports of coated woodfree paper sheets from Switzerland. 
Switzerland contends that the investigation is not in conformity with Australia's commitments under 
Articles 3 and 5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. On 13 May 1998, the two parties notified a mutually agreed solution. 
23. WT/DS115 – European Communities – Measures Affecting the Grant of Copyright and Neighbouring Rights 
Complaint by the United States. On 6 January 1998,  the US requested consultations with the EC 
regarding similar measures as in WT/DS82 in respect of Ireland. On 9 January 1998, the US requested 
the establishment of a panel. On 6 November 2000, th e parties notified the DSB that they had reached 
a mutually satisfactory solution. 
24. WT/DS103, WT/DS113 – Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products 
(See also Sections V and VI). Complaints by the United States and New Zealand.  
On 9 May 2003, Canada and the United States, and Canada and New Zealand informed the DSB that 
they had reached mutually agreed solutions un der Article 3.6 of the DSU in both disputes. 
25. WT/DS102 – Philippines – Measures Affecting Pork and Poultry 
Complaint by the United States. This request, da ted 7 October 1997, is in respect of the same 
measures complained of by the US in DS74, but al so includes Administrative Order No. 8, Series of 
1997, which purports to amend the original measure complained of in DS74. On 12 March 1998, the 
parties communicated a mutually ag reed solution to their dispute.  WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 249 
 
 
  26. WT/DS99 – United States – Anti-Dumping  Duty on Dynamic Random Access Memory 
Semiconductors (DRAMS) of One Megabit or Above from Korea 
Complaint by Korea. This request, dated 14 Augus t 1997, is in respect of a decision of the US 
Department of Commerce (DoC) not to revoke  the anti-dumping duty on dynamic random access 
memory semi-conductors (DRAMS) of one megabyt e or above originating from Korea. Korea 
contends that the DoC's decision was made despite  the finding that the Korean DRAM producers have 
not dumped their products for a period of more than three and a half consecutive years, and despite 
the existence of evidence demonstrating conclusive ly that Korean DRAM producers will not engage 
in dumping DRAMS in the future. Korea considered that these measures are in violation of Articles 6 
and 11 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  
At its meeting on 16 January 1998, the DSB est ablished a panel. The Panel found the measures 
complained of to be in violation of Article 11.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. The report of the Panel was circulated on 29 January 1999. At its  meeting on 19 March 1999, the DSB adopted the 
Panel Report. Korea requested that this matter be referred to the original panel pursuant to 
Article 21.5 of the DSU. Following adoption of the panel report by the DSB, Korea submitted a 
request to the effect that the matter be referred to  the original panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the 
DSU. At its meeting on 25 April 2000, the DSB agreed to reconvene the orig inal panel pursuant to 
Article 21.5 of the DSU. The EC reserved its re served its third-party rights. 19 September 2000, 
Korea has requested the Panel to suspend its work, including the issuan ce of the interim report, "until 
further notification" pursuant to Article 12.12 of th e DSU. The Panel, in a letter sent to the parties on 
21 September 2000, has agreed to this request. On 20 October 2000, the parties notified the DSB of a 
mutually satisfactory solution to the matter, involvi ng the revocation of the antidumping order at issue 
as the result of a five-year "sunset" review by the US Department of Commerce. 
27. WT/DS96 – India – Quantitative Restrictions  on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and 
Industrial Goods 
Complaint by the European Communities. This requ est, dated 18 July 1997, raises the same issues in 
respect of India's quantitative restrictions on imports of agricultural, textile and industrial products as 
in the requests by the US (DS90), Australia (D S91), Canada (DS92), New Zealand (DS93), and 
Switzerland (DS94). In addition, the EC is also alle ging violations of Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the SPS 
Agreement. On 7 April 1998, the two parties notified a mutually agreed solution. 
28. WT/DS94 – India – Quantitative Restrictions  on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and 
Industrial Products 
Complaint by Switzerland. This request, dated 18 Ju ly 1997, raises the same issues in respect of 
India's quantitative restrictions on imports of agricultural, textile and industrial products as in the 
requests by the US (DS90), Australia (DS91), Ca nada (DS92), and New Ze aland (DS93). However, 
Switzerland does not invoke the Agreement on Agri culture. On 23 February 1998, the two parties 
notified a mutually agreed solution. 
29. WT/DS93 – India – Quantitative Restrictions  on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and 
Industrial Products 
Complaint by New Zealand. This request, dated 16 July 1997, raises the same issues in respect of India's quantitative restrictions on imports of agricultural, textile and industrial products as in the requests by the US (DS90), Australia (DS91) and Canada (DS92). However, New Zealand makes an additional claim for nullification and impairment of benefits accruing to it under GATT 1994. In a WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 250 
 
 
  letter dated 14 September 1998, but communicated to the Secretariat on 1 December 1998, the two 
parties notified a mutually agreed solution to this dispute. 
30. WT/DS92 – India – Quantitative Restrictions  on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and 
Industrial Products 
Complaint by Canada. This request, dated 16 July 1997, raises the same issues in respect of India's 
quantitative restrictions on imports of agricultural, te xtile and industrial products as in the requests by 
the US (DS90) and Australia (DS91). On 25 March 1998, the two parties notified a mutually agreed 
solution. 
31. WT/DS91 – India – Quantitative Restrictions  on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and 
Industrial Products 
Complaint by Australia. This request, dated 16 July 1997, raises the same issues in respect of India's 
quantitative restrictions on imports of agricultural, textile and industrial produc ts as in the request by 
the US in DS90. On 23 March 1998, the two parties notified a mutually agreed solution. 
32. WT/DS86 – Sweden – Measures Affecting the Enforcement of Intellectual Property 
Rights 
Complaint by the United States. This request, dated 28 May 1997, is in respect of Sweden's alleged 
failure to make provisional measures available in the context of civil proceedings involving intellectual property rights. The US contends that  this failure violates Sweden's obligations under 
Articles 50, 63 and 65 of the TRIPS Agreement. In  a communication dated 2 December 1998, the two 
parties notified a mutually agreed solution to this dispute. 
33. WT/DS85 – United States – Measures A ffecting Textiles and Apparel Products 
Complaint by the European Communities. This request , dated 23 May 1997, is in respect of changes 
to US rules of origin for textiles and apparel products. The EC alleges that the US has introduced changes to its rules of origin for textile and appa rel products, which affect exports of EC fabrics, 
scarves and other flat textile products to the US. As a result, the EC alleges that EC products are no longer recognised in the US as being of EC origin and lose the free access to th e US market that they 
had hitherto enjoyed. The EC contends that these cha nges in US rules of origin are in violation of the 
obligations of the US under Articles 2.4, 4.2 and 4.4 of the ATC, Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Rules of Origin, Article III of GATT 1994, and Artic le 2 of the TBT Agreement. On 11 February 
1998, the two parties notified their mutually agreed solution. 
34. WT/DS83 – Denmark – Measures Affecting the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights 
Complaint by the United States. This request, dated 14 May 1997, is in respect of Denmark's alleged 
failure to make provisional measures available in the context of civil proceedings involving intellectual property rights. The US contends that  this failure violates De nmark's obligations under 
Articles 50, 63 and 65 of the TRIPS Agreement. On 7 June 2001, the parties to the dispute notified to 
the DSB a mutually satisfactory solution on the matter.  WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 251 
 
 
  35. WT/DS82 – Ireland – Measures Affecting the Grant of Copyright and Neighbouring 
Rights 
Complaint by the United States. On 14 May 1997, the US requested consultations with Ireland in 
respect Ireland's alleged failure to grant copyri ght and neighbouring rights under its law. The US 
contended that this failure violates Ireland's oblig ations under Articles 9-14, 63, 65 and 70 of the 
TRIPS Agreement. On 9 January 1998, the United States requested the establishment of a panel. On 6 November 2000, the parties informed the DSB that th ey had reached a mutually satisfactory solution. 
36. WT/DS74 – Philippines – Measures Affecting Pork and Poultry 
Complaint by the United States. This request, dated 1 April 1997, is in respect of the implementation by the Philippines of its tariff-rate quotas for pork and poultry. The US contends that the Philippines' 
implementation of these tariff-rate quotas, in particular the delays in permitting access to the in-quota quantities and the licensing system used to administ er access to the in-quota quantities, appears to be 
inconsistent with the obligations of the Philippines under Articles III, X, and XI of GATT 1994, Article 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture, Artic les 1 and 3 of the Agreement on Import Licensing 
Procedures, and Articles 2 and 5 of TRIMs. The US further contends that theses measures appear to 
nullify or impair benefits accruing to it directly or  indirectly under cited agreements. On 12 March 
1998, the parties communicated a mutually  agreed solution to their dispute. 
37. WT/DS73 – Japan – Procurement of a Navigation Satellite 
Complaint by the European Communities. This re quest, dated 26 March 1997, is in respect of a 
procurement tender published by the Ministry of Transport (MoT) of Japan to purchase a multi-
functional satellite for Air Traffic Management. The EC  contends that the specifications in the tender 
were not neutral but referred explicitly to US sp ecifications. This meant, the EC contends, that 
European bidders could effectively not participate in  the tender. The EC alleges inconsistency of this 
tender with Annex I of Appendix I of Japan's commitments under the Government Procurement 
Agreement (GPA). The EC also alleges violations of Articles VI(3) and XII(2) of the GPA. On 31 
July 1997, the EC notified the Secretariat that a mutually agreed solution had been reached with Japan 
in this dispute. On 19 February 1998, the two par ties communicated the text of their agreement to the 
DSB. 
38. WT/DS72 – European Communities – Measures Affecting Butter Products 
Complaint by New Zealand. This request, dated 24 Ma rch 1997, is in respect of decisions by the EC 
and the United Kingdom's Customs and Excise Department, to the effect that New Zealand butter 
manufactured by the ANMIX butter-making process and the spreadable butter-making process be 
classified so as to be excluded from eligibility for New Zealand's country-specific tariff quota 
established by the European Communities' WTO Sc hedule. New Zealand alleges violations of 
Articles II, X and XI of GATT, Article 2 of the TBT Agreement, and Article 3 of the Agreement on 
Import Licensing Procedures. On 6 November 1997, New Zealand requested the establishment of a 
panel. The DSB established a panel on 18 November 1997. The US reserved its third-party rights. At 
the request of the complainants, dated 24 February  1999, the Panel agreed, pursuant to Article 12.12 
of the DSU, to suspend the panel proceedings. In a communication dated 11 November 1999, the parties notified a mutually agreed solution to this dispute. 
39. WT/DS43 – Turkey – Taxation of Foreign Film Revenues 
Complaint by the United States. This request for cons ultations, dated 12 June 19 96, concerns Turkey's 
taxation of revenues generated from the showing of foreign films. Violation of GATT Article III is WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 252 
 
 
  alleged. On 9 January 1997, the United States request ed the establishment of a panel. At its meeting 
on 25 February 1997, the DSB established a panel. Canada reserved its third-party rights to the 
dispute. On 14 July 1997, both parties notified the DSB of a mutually agreed solution. 
40. WT/DS42 – Japan – Measures Concerning Sound Recordings 
Complaint by the European Communities. This request for consultations, dated 24 May 1996, 
concerns the intellectual property protection of sound recordings under GATT Article XXII:1. 
Violations of Articles 14.6 and 70.2 of the TRIPS Agreement are alleged. Earlier, the United States 
requested consultations with Japan on the same issue (WT/DS28), in which the EC joined. On 7 
November 1997, both parties notified a mutually agreed solution. 
41. WT/DS40 – Korea – Laws, Regulations and Practices in the Telecommunications 
Procurement Sector 
Complaint by the European Communities. This request for consultations, dated 9 May 1996, concerns 
the laws, regulations and practices in the tel ecommunications sector. The EC claims that the 
procurement practices of the Korean telecomm unications sector (Korea Telecom and Dacom) 
discriminate against foreign suppliers. The EC also  claims that the Korean government has favoured 
US suppliers under two bilateral telecommunicat ions agreements between Korea and the US. 
Violations of GATT Articles I, III and XVII are alle ged. On 22 October 1997, the parties notified the 
Secretariat of a mutually agreed solution. 
42. WT/DS37 – Portugal – Patent Protection under the Industrial Property Act 
Complaint by the United States. This request for consultations dated 30 April 1996, concerned 
Portugal's term of patent protection under its Industrial Property Act. The US claimed that the 
provisions in that Act with respect to existing patents were inconsistent with Portugal's obligations 
under the TRIPS Agreement. Violations under Articl es 33, 65 and 70 were alleged. On 3 October 
1996, both parties notified a mutually agreed solution to the DSB. 
43. WT/DS36 – Pakistan – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical Products 
Complaint by the United States. In its request for consultations dated 30 April 1996, the United States claimed that the absence in Pakistan  of (i) either patent protection for pharmaceutical and agricultural 
chemical products or a system to permit the filing of  applications for patents on these products and (ii) 
a system to grant exclusive marketing rights in such products, violates TRIPS Agreement Articles 27, 
65 and 70. On 4 July 1996, the United States re quested the establishment of a panel. The DSB 
considered the request at its meeting on 16 July 19 96, but did not establish a panel due to Pakistan's 
objection. At the DSB meeting on 25 February 1997, both parties informed the DSB that they had reached a mutually agreed soluti on to the dispute and that the terms of the agreement were being 
drawn up, and would be communicated to the DSB on ce finalized. On 28 February 1997, the terms of 
the agreement were communicated to the Secretariat. 
44. WT/DS35 – Hungary – Export Subsidies in  Respect of Agricultural Products 
Complaint by Argentina, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Thailand and the United States. This 
request, dated 27 March 1996, claims that H ungary violated the Agreement on Agriculture 
(Article 3.3 and Part V) by providing export subsidi es in respect of agricultural products not specified 
in its Schedule, as well as by providing agricultu ral export subsidies in excess of its commitment 
levels. On 9 January 1997, Argentina, Australia , New Zealand and the United States requested the  WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 253 
 
 
  establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 25 Febr uary 1997 the DSB established a panel. Canada, 
Japan, Thailand and Uruguay reserved their third-party rights to the dispute. At the DSB meeting on 
30 July 1997, Australia, on behalf of all the compla inants, notified the DSB that the parties to the 
dispute had reached a mutually agreed solution, whic h required Hungary to seek a waiver of certain of 
its WTO obligations. Pending adoption of the waiv er, the complaint was not formally withdrawn. 
45. WT/DS28 – Japan – Measures Concerning Sound Recordings 
Complaint by the United States. This request, da ted 9 February 1996, is the first WTO dispute 
settlement case involving the TRIPS Agreement. Th e United States claims that Japan's copyright 
regime for the protection of intellectual property in sound recordings is inconsistent with, inter alia, 
the TRIPS Agreement Article 14 (protection of performers, producers of phonograms and 
broadcasting organizations). On January 24 1997,  both parties informed the DSB that they had 
reached a mutually satisfactor y solution to the dispute. 
46. WT/DS21 – Australia – Measures Affecting the Importation of Salmonids 
Complaint by the United States. This request for consultations, dated 17 November 1995, concerns the same regulation alleged to be in violation of the WTO Agreements in WT/DS18, in respect of 
which the reports of the panel and Appellate B ody have already been adopted and are awaiting 
implementation. On 11 May 1999, the United States requested the establishment of a panel. At its 
meeting on 16 June 1999, the DSB established a pa nel. Canada;  the European Communities, Hong 
Kong, China;  India and Norway reserved their third party rights. At the request of the complainants, 
the Panel agreed on 8 November 1999 to suspend its work, pursuant to Article 12.12 of the DSU, until 
such time as the panelists have completed thei r work in the ongoing proceeding requested by Canada 
pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU (WT/DS18) or for eleven months, whichever is the earlier. On 29 
March 2000, the panel agreed to a request by the US, pursuant to Article 12.12 of the DSU, to suspend its work for a period of one month, i. e. until 29 April 2000. On 12 May 2000, the panel 
agreed to a request by the US to  suspend its work for an additional period of time, which will expire 
on 17 July 2000. On 27 October 2000, the parties to the dispute notified a mutually satisfactory 
solution on the matter to the DSB. 
47. WT/DS20 – Korea – Measures Concerning Bottled Water 
Complaint by Canada. In this request for consulta tions dated 8 November 1995, Canada claimed that 
Korean regulations on the shelf-life and physical treatment (disinfection) of bottled water were 
inconsistent with GATT Articles III and XI, SPS Ar ticles 2 and 5 and TBT Article 2. At the DSB 
meeting on 24 April 1996, the parties to the di spute announced that they reached a settlement. 
48. WT/DS19 – Poland – Import Regime for Automobiles 
Complaint by India. This request for consulta tions, dated 28 September 1995, concerns Poland's 
preferential treatment of the EC in its tariff sch eme on automobiles. On 16 July 1996, both parties 
notified a mutually agreed solution to the DSB. 
49. WT/DS7, WT/DS12, WT/DS14 – European Communities – Trade Description of 
Scallops 
Complaints by Canada, Peru and Chile. The compla int concerned a French Government Order laying 
down the official name and trade description of scall ops. Complainants claimed that this Order will 
reduce competitiveness on the French market as thei r product will no longer be able to be sold as 
"Coquille Saint-Jacques" although there is no differen ce between their scallops and French scallops in WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 254 
 
 
  terms of colour, size, texture, appearance and use, i.e. it is claimed they are "like products". Violations 
of GATT Articles I and III and TBT Article 2 were alleged.  
A panel was established at the request of Canada on 19 July 1995. A joint panel was established on 11 
October 1995 at the request of Peru and Chile on the same subject. The two panels concluded their 
substantive work, but suspended the proceedings pursuant to Article 12.12 of the DSU in May 1996 in 
view of the consultations held among the parties c oncerned towards a mutually agreed solution. The 
parties notified a mutually agreed solution to the DSB on 5 July 1996. Brief panel reports noting the 
settlement were circulated to Members on 5 August 1996 in accordance with the provisions of 
Article 12.7 of the DSU. 
50. WT/DS6 – United States – Imposition of Import Duties on Automobiles from Japan 
under Sections 301 and 304 of the Trade Act of 1974 
Complaint by Japan. On 19 July 1995, the parties no tified settlement of this dispute. Japan had alleged 
that the import surcharges violated GATT Articles I and II. 
51. WT/DS5 – Korea – Measures Concerning the Shelf-Life of Products 
Complaint by the United States. On 3 May 1995, the US requested consultations with Korea in 
respect of requirements imposed by Korea on imports  from the US which had the effect of restricting 
imports. The US alleged violations of Articles III and XI of GATT, Articles 2 and 5 of the SPS 
Agreement, Article 2 of the TBT Agreement, and Article 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture. The 
parties notified a mutually acceptable solu tion to this dispute on 31 July 1995. 
B. OTHERS  
1. WT/DS326 – European Communities – Defi nitive Safeguard Measure on Salmon 
Complaint by Chile. On 8 February 2005, Chile requested consultations with the European 
Communities regarding the latter's definitive safegua rd measure against imports of farmed salmon 
imposed through Commission Regulation (EC) No. 206/20 05, published in the Official Journal of the 
European Union on 5 February 2005. The measure will be in force from 6 February 2005 to 13 
August 2008. The measu re consists of:  
• A system of tariff quotas calculated on the b asis of past imports of salmon into the 
Communities. Imports of farmed salmon beyond the level of the tariff quota shall be subject to an additional duty according to the group to which they belong;  
• A minimum price applicable to imports both within and beyond the tariff quota; and,  
• A security which must be provided by importers as a guarantee of the payment of the actual import price. On 10 January 2005, the European Communities notified the WTO of its 
findings of serious injury and of its propo sed safeguard measure, concerning farmed salmon 
(Docs. G/SG/N/8/EEC/3, G/SG/N/10/EEC /3 and G/SG/N/11/EEC/3/Suppl.1).  
According to the information provided in the request for consultations, Chile requested prior 
consultations with the European Communities (EC)  pursuant to Article 12.3 of the Agreement on 
Safeguards. The prior consultations took place in Brussels on 20 January 2005.   WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 255 
 
 
  Chile states in its request for consultations that the definitive safeguard measure against imports of 
farmed salmon is inconsistent with the EC's ob ligations under the WTO agreements and seriously 
affects Chilean exports of salmon to the EC, because in its opinion:  
• The product subject to the measures and its like or directly competitive products were not 
properly defined, since "chilled farmed salmon" is a different product from the "fresh salmon" 
produced by the European industry.  
• There were no "unforeseen developments" as a result of which there was an increase in 
imports, as required by Article XIX of GATT 1994.  
• There has not been an increase in imports re cent enough, sudden enough, sharp enough, nor 
significant enough, so as to cause or threaten to  cause serious injury to the domestic industry 
as required by Article XIX of GATT 1994 and by Article 2.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards. Neither has there been an increas e in imports relative to domestic production.  
• There is no serious injury nor threat of injury  to the domestic industry and the determination 
of injury made by the investigating authority was based on allegations from the domestic industry, and on conjectures and remote possibilit ies, all of which is inconsistent with 
Article 4.2(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards.  
• Since there is no injury nor threat of injury  attributable to an increase in imports, the 
safeguard measure would be incompatible with Article 4.2(b) of the Agreement on 
Safeguards.  
• Finally, the safeguard measure imposed on imports of salmon goes beyond the extent necessary to prevent or remedy the serious inju ry and to facilitate adjustment, as required by 
Article 5 of the Agreement on Safeguards.  
On 18 February 2005, Norway requested to join the consultations. On 15 March 2005, the European Communities accepted the request of Norw ay to join the consultations.  
On 12 May 2005, Chile formally withdrew its reque st for consultations as the safeguard measure at 
issue was terminated as of 27 April 2005. 
2. WT/DS306 – India – Anti-Dumping Measure on Batteries from Bangladesh 
Complaint by Bangladesh.  On 28 January 2004, Bangladesh requested consultations with India concerning a certain anti-dumping measure imposed by India on imports of lead acid batteries from Bangladesh. Bangladesh is particularly concerned a bout the following aspects of the investigation by 
the Indian authority leading to the imposition of the definitive anti-dumping duties:  
• Initiation of the investigation, notwithstanding the unsubstantiated claim of the applicants that 
the application was "by or on behalf of the domestic industry"; and failure to immediately 
terminate the investigation, notwithstandi ng the negligible volume of imports from 
Bangladesh;  
• determination of margin (determination of nor mal value; apparent a doption of constructed 
value; determination of export price; and comparison between normal value and export price);  
• determination of injury and causation (examina tion of import volume, the effect on prices, 
and the impact on domestic producers of like products; inclusion of imports from Bangladesh WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 256 
 
 
  in the assessment of the effects of imports; evaluation and examination of relevant factors; 
and examination of the causal link between the imports and the alleged injury);  
• treatment of evidence (failure to consider information submitted by the interested parties from Bangladesh; treatment of information submitted by  the applicants as confidential; failure to 
disclose to the interested parties the "essential facts under consideration which form the basis 
for the decision to apply definitive measur es" and other relevant information)  
• failure to provide the parties and give public notice of "all relevant information on the matters of fact and law and reasons which have led to the imposition of final measures". 
Bangladesh considers that the foregoing Indian measure is inconsistent with: Article VI of GATT 1994, including Articles VI:1, VI:2 and VI:6(a); Articles 1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7, 
5.4, 5.8, 6.2, 6.4, 6.5, 6.8 (including para. 3 of Annex II), 6.9 and 12.2 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement. Furthermore, Bangladesh considers that , as a result of the imposition of the anti-dumping 
duties, India may be acting inconsistently with its obligations under Articles I:1 and II:1 of GATT 
1994. Bangladesh also considers that the benefits accruing to it directly or indirectly under the WTO 
Agreement are being nullified or impaired pursuant to Articles XXIII:1(a) and XXIII:1(b), 
respectively, of GATT 1994.  
On 11 February 2004, the European Communiti es requested to join the consultations.  
On 20 February 2006, the parties informed the DSB of a mutually satisfactory solution to the matter 
raised by Bangladesh.  The measure which was addr essed in the request for consultations has been 
terminated by India's Customs Notification No. 01/2005 dated 4 January 2005. 
3. WT/DS298 – Mexico – Certain Pricing for Customs Valuation and Other Purposes 
Complaint by Guatemala. On 22 July 2003, Gu atemala requested consultations with Mexico 
concerning certain Mexican customs rules, pro cedures and administrative practices which impose 
officially established prices for customs valuation and other purposes. Guatemala also contested the 
Mexican authorities' practice of requiring a deposit or bond to guarantee the observance of these 
officially established prices.  
In Guatemala's view, Mexican customs rules, pr ocedures and administrative practices at issue are 
inconsistent with Mexico's obligati ons under the following WTO provisions: 
• Articles I, II, VII and X of GATT 1994; 
• Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 22 of the Customs Valuation Agreement;  
• Article 4 of the Agriculture Agreement;  
• Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.  
On 29 August 2005, Guatemala informed the DSB th at, as a result of the consultations, Guatemala 
and Mexico had reached a mutually satisfactory so lution concerning footwear and brushes, two areas 
that were severely affected by the measures imposed  by Mexico, and that the request for consultations 
should be withdrawn.   WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 257 
 
 
  4. WT/DS284 – Mexico – Certain Measures Preventing the Importation of Black Beans 
from Nicaragua 
Complaint by Nicaragua. On 17 March 2003, Nicaragua requested consultations with Mexico regarding certain measures imposed by Mexico, wh ich prevent the importation of black beans from 
Nicaragua. These measures include:  
• The administration of the procedures set out in  Official Standard 006-FITO-95 and Official 
Standard 028-FITO-95, including the refusal of the competent Mexican authorities to furnish 
importers with the document containing the phytosanitary requirements necessary for the 
importation of black beans from Nicaragua;  
• The more favourable treatment that the co mpetent Mexican authorities accord in the 
administration of the above procedures to like products originating in countries other than Nicaragua;  
• The failure to publish the specific phytosanitary requirements for the importation of black beans from Nicaragua; and  
• The failure to publish the rules, requirement s and procedures concerning the tender for the 
quota allocation of black beans from Nicaragua.  
In Nicaragua's view, the above measures are inconsistent with Mexico 's obligations under Articles I:1, 
X:1, X:3(a), XI:1 and XIII:1 of the GATT 1994 and Articles 1.2, 1.3, 1.4(a) and 2.2(a) of the Licensing Agreement. In addition, Nicaragua claims that, if the above measures are sanitary or phytosanitary measures as defined in the SPS Agreem ent, they would also be inconsistent with 
Articles 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 5.1, 7 and paragr aph 1 of Annex B of the SPS Agreement.  
On 27 March 2003, the United States requested to jo in the consultations. On 28 March 2003, Canada 
requested to join the consultations.  
On 8 March 2004, Nicaragua informed the DSB that it wished formally to withdraw the request for consultations as its complaints had been adequately addressed as a result of negotiations with Mexico.  
5. WT/DS255 – Peru – Tax Treatment on Certain Imported Products 
Complaint by Chile. On 22 April 2002, Chile requested  consultations with Peru in respect of its tax 
treatment on imports of fresh fruits, vegetables, fish, milk, tea and other natural products. In 
particular, Chile explained that before the adop tion of Law 27.614, published on 29 December 2001, 
both the sale in the Peruvian market and the importation into Peru of the products at issue had been exempt from sales tax. Further to the adoption of Law 27.614, the importation into Peru of the 
products at issue was no longer exempt from sales tax (18 per cent) while the sale of those products in 
the Peruvian market was still exempt from sales tax.  
Chile considered that the different tax treatment  between domestic and impor ted products constituted 
a violation by Peru of its national treatment commitments both:  
• at bilateral level: Article 19 of the Economic  Complementarity Agreement (ECA 38) and,  
• at multilateral level (WTO): Article III of GATT 199 4. In this regard, Chile claimed that Law 
27.614 by providing that the exemption from sales tax only applied to the sale in Peru and not 
to the importation, was inconsistent with Article III of the GATT 1994.  WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 258 
 
 
  Chile contended that the above measure prejudiced the competitiveness of Chile's exports to Peru of 
the said products, in particular although not limited to, apples, table grapes and peaches.  
On the grounds that the products affected by th e measure at issue were natural goods and thus 
perishable, Chile was invoking the urgency consultation procedure under Article 4.8 of the DSU and 
already announced that it would make use of the expeditious Panel and Appellate Body procedures 
referred to in Article 4.9 of the DSU.  
On 8 May 2002, the United States requested to join the consultations.  
On 13 June 2002, Chile requested the establishmen t of a panel. At its meeting on 24 June 2002, the 
DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. On 26 July 2002, Chile requested that its second request 
for the establishment of a panel be removed from the agenda of the DSB meeting on 29 July 2002.  
On 25 September 2002, Chile informed the DSB that it was withdrawing this complaint as Peru had 
repealed Article 2 of Law 27.614 and as a result the disputed measures had disappeared.   
6. WT/DS240 – Romania – Import Prohibition on Wheat and Wheat Flour 
Complaint by Hungary. On 18 October 2001, Hunga ry requested consultations with Romania 
concerning Romania's Joint Decree of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food Industry and Forestry No. 
119069 (16.07.2001), Ministry of Family and Health No. 495 (18.07.2001) and the National 
Consumer Protection Authority No. 1/3687 (19.07.2001) prohibiting the import of wheat and wheat 
flour which does not meet certain quality standards.  
In particular, Hungary claimed that:  
• the import prohibition has been imposed in a ma nner inconsistent with Romania's obligations 
under Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994; and  
• the introduction of the above-mentioned quality requirements is in breach of Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 because domestically produced produc ts are not subject to the same quality 
requirements. 
On 30 October 2001, Hungary requested consultati ons with Romania according to the urgency 
procedures provided in Article 4.8 of the DSU.   On 27 November 2001, Hungary requested the 
establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 10 December 2001, the DSB deferred the establishment of the panel.  On 20 December 2001, further to the ab rogation by Romania of its legislation regarding 
the quality requirements for imported wheat and wheat flour, Hungary withdrew its request. 
7. WT/DS232 – Mexico – Measures Affecting the Import of Matches 
Complaint by Chile. On 17 May 2001, Chile requested  consultations with Mexico in respect of a 
series of Mexican laws and regulations which are alleged to constitute un necessary barriers to the 
import of Chilean matches. According to Chile, pur suant to these laws and regulations, matches have 
been classified in Mexico as an explosive and h azardous product, due to a confusion between the 
chemical element " fósforo " (phosphor) and " fosfóros (o cerillos) de seguridad " (matches). As a result, 
Chilean matches have been subject to control by th e National Defense Ministry and, consequently, to 
a series of requirements regarding packaging, entry,  liquidation, transportation and storage applicable 
to explosives and other hazardous substances, with the aim of providing protection to the Mexican industry. According to Chile, these measures are inconsistent with, 
inter alia , the following  WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 259 
 
 
  provisions: Articles 1, 2 and 5 of the TBT Agreemen t; Articles 1, 3 and 5 of the Agreement on Import 
Licensing Procedures; and Article III:4 of the GATT 1994.  
On 2 February 2004, Chile informed the DSB that it wished formally to withdraw the request for 
consultations and bring this matter to a close as its complaints had been adequately met as a result of 
negotiations with Mexico. 
8. WT/DS228 – Chile – Safeguard Measures on Sugar 
Complaint by Colombia. On 19 March 2001, Colombia requested consultations with Chile concerning 
definitive safeguard measures relating to sugar. Th is request was replaced by that in dispute 
WT/DS230 above. 
9. WT/DS227 – Peru – Taxes on Cigarettes 
Complaint by Chile. On 1 March 2001, Chile requ ested consultations with Peru concerning the 
Peruvian Supreme Decree No. 158-99-EF of 25 September 1999 modifying appendices III and IV of 
the General Sales Tax and Selective Consumption Tax Law, which identify the goods subject to the 
selective consumption tax. Article 1B of the said S upreme Decree amends the tax applied to cigarettes 
made of dark tobacco, standard cigarettes made of  bright tobacco and premium cigarettes made of 
bright tobacco, setting a different specific tax for each one of these categories of cigarettes ranging from S/0.025 to S/0.100 per unit.  
According to Chile, the difference in the amount of the tax appears to be contingent only on the number of countries in which the different commercial brands of cigarettes are marketed – more than 
three or less than three – a criterion which is a source of concern for Chile, since it could signify discrimination against imported cigarettes, from Chile for example, which, being marketed in more 
than three countries, are subject to a higher tax th an local brand cigarettes. In Chile's view, this 
situation, which is damaging to Chilean cigarette e xports to Peru, could constitute a violation of the 
GATT 1994 – in particular, but not necessarily exclusively, of Article III.2 of the GATT 1994 – and 
of a repeated Appellate Body jurisprudence in this area.  
At its meeting of 24 June 2001, the DSB established a Panel further to Chile's request. None of the 
Members reserved their third-party rights.  
On 12 July 2001, Chile announced its intention to  withdraw the complaint on the grounds that the 
contested measure, i.e. the specific selective cons umption tax system applied to cigarettes by Peru, 
had been amended on 30 June 2001 with the pub lication of Supreme Decree No. 128-2001 of the 
Ministry of the Economy and Finance of Peru, which entered into force on 1 July 2001. As from that 
date, cigarettes are subject to the Peruvian common selective consumption tax system at a rate of 100 
per cent, regardless of their origin, price, type or quality of tobacco and/or the number of sales 
markets. This amendment in the tax regime applicab le to cigarettes was the result of a ruling of the 
Constitutional Court of Peru on 19 June 2001. 
10. WT/DS193 – Chile – Measures affecting the Transit and Importing of Swordfish 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 19 April 2000, the EC requested consultations with 
Chile regarding the prohibition on unloading of swor dfish in Chilean ports established on the basis of 
Article 165 of the Chilean Fishery Law (Ley General de Pesca y Acuicultura), as consolidated by the 
Supreme Decree 430 of 28 September 1991, and extended by Decree 598 of 15 October 1999.  WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 260 
 
 
  The EC asserted that its fishing vessels operating in the South East Pacific are not allowed under 
Chilean legislation to unload their swordfish in Chil ean ports either to land them for warehousing or 
to transship them onto other vessels. The EC consid ered that, as a result, Chile makes transit through 
its ports impossible for swordfish. The EC claimed that the above-mentioned measures are 
inconsistent with the GATT 1994, and in particular Articles V and XI thereof.  
At its meeting of 12 December 2000, the DSB established a panel further to the request of the EC. Australia, Canada, Ecuador, India, New Zealand, Norway, Iceland and the US reserved their third-
party rights. On 23 March 2001, the EC informed th e Director-General of the WTO and the Chairman 
of the DSB that they agreed to suspend the pro cess for the constitution of the panel. On 28 March 
2001, Chile did likewise.  
On 12 November 2003, the parties to the dispute informed the Chairman of the DSB that they agreed to maintain the suspension of the process for the constitution of the panel.  On 21 December 2005, the parties to the dispute informed the DSB that th ey maintain the suspensi on of the process for the 
constitution of the panel. 
11. WT/DS181 – Colombia – Safeguard Measure of Imports of Plain Polyester Filaments 
from Thailand 
Complaint by Thailand. On 28 and 29 September 1998,  at the request of Colombia pursuant to 
Article 6.7 of the ATC, consultations took place be tween Thailand and Colombia regarding imports 
into the latter of plain polyester filaments (tariff heading 5402.43) from Thailand. Failing the 
consultations, Thailand requested the establishmen t of a panel on 7 September 1999 to settle this 
dispute. Colombia's safeguard measure is alleged to be inconsistent with Article 2 of the Agreement 
on Textiles and Clothing (ATC) regarding the applic ation of a transitional safeguard mechanism and 
with Article 2 of the ATC regarding the introduction and application of restrictions by Members. The 
safeguard measures imposed by Colombia on 26 October 1998 have been subject to the two-stage examination and review procedures by the Textiles Monitoring Body (TMB). The TMB recommended at its fiftieth meeting held on 16-19 November 1998 that Colombia rescind the 
measure. On 22 December 1998, Colombia notified th e TMB of its inability to conform with this 
TMB recommendation and provided the TMB with reasons therefor. At its fifty-second meeting on 18-20 January 1999, the TMB reviewed the matter a nd repeated its recommendation to Colombia to 
rescind the safeguard measure forthwith. At the DSB meeting on 27 October 1999, Thailand 
announced that it was withdrawing its request for a panel because the Colombian safeguard measure 
had been terminated. 
12. WT/DS106 – Australia – Subsidies Provided to  Producers and Exporters of Automotive 
Leather 
Complaint by the United States. This request, date d 10 November 1997, is in respect of Australia's 
alleged prohibited subsidies provide d to its producers and exporters of automotive leather. The US 
contends that these measures by Australia violate Artic le 3 of the Subsidies Agreement. On 9 January 
1998, the United States requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 22 January 1998, the DSB established a panel in accordance with the accelerated procedure under the Subsidies Agreement. On 11 June 1998, the US withdrew its request for a panel. See also WT/DS126. 
13. WT/DS101 – Mexico- Anti-Dumping Investigation of High-Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) from the United States 
Complaint by the United States. On 4 September 1997, the US requested consultations with Mexico in 
respect of an anti-dumping investigation of high-fru ctose corn syrup (HFCS) from the United States  WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 261 
 
 
  conducted by Mexico, resulting in a preliminary determination of dumping and injury, and the 
consequent imposition of provisional measures on imports of HCFS from the United States. The US 
alleged violations of Articles 5.5, 6.1.3, 6.2,  6.4 and 6.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  
On 8 May 1998, the US requested consultations in  respect of the same anti-dumping investigation 
which had resulted in the imposition of definitiv e anti-dumping measures on these imports from the 
United States. See WT/DS132 and WT/DS132/RW. 
14. WT/DS95 – United States – Measure Affecting Government Procurement 
Complaint by Japan. This request, dated 18 July 1997, is in respect of the same issued raised by the 
EC in DS88 above. On 8 September 1998, Japan re quested the establishment of a panel. At its 
meeting on 21 October 1998, the DSB established a panel. The DSB agreed that pursuant to 
Article 9.1 of the DSU, a single panel would examine this dispute together with DS88. 
15. WT/DS89 – United States – Imposition of Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Colour 
Television Receivers from Korea 
Complaint by Korea. This request, dated 10 July 1997 , is in respect of the imposition of anti-dumping 
duties by the US on imports of colour television re ceivers (CTVs) from Korea. Korea contends that 
the US has for the past twelve years maintained  an anti-dumping order for Samsung's CTVs despite 
the absence of dumping and the cessation of exports from Korea, without examining the necessity of continuing to impose such duties. Korea contends that the US actions violate Articles VI.1 and 
VI.6(a) of GATT 1994, and Articles 1, 2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.6, 4.1, 5.4, 5.8, 5.10, 11.1 and 11.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. On 6 November 1997, Korea requested the establishment of a panel. On 5 
January 1998, Korea informed the DSB that it was withdrawing its request for a panel but reserving 
its right to reintroduce the request. At the DSB meeting on 22 September 1998, Korea announced that 
it was definitively withdrawing the request for a panel because the imposition of anti-dumping duties 
had now been revoked. 
16. WT/DS88 – United States – Measure Affecting Government Procurement 
Complaint by the European Communities. This request , dated 20 June 1997, is in respect of an Act 
enacted by the Commonwealth of Massachuse tts on 25 June 1996, entitled Act regulating State 
Contracts with companies doing Business with Burma (Myanmar). The Act provides, in essence, that public authorities of the Commonwealth of Massac husetts are not allowed to procure goods or 
services from any persons who do business with Burma.  The EC contends that, as Massachusetts is 
covered under the US schedule to the GPA, this violates Articles VIII(B), X and XIII of the GPA 
Agreement. The EC also contends that the measu re also nullifies benefits accruing to it under the 
GPA, as well as impeding the attainment of the objec tives of the GPA, including that of maintaining 
balance of rights and obligations. On 8 Septembe r 1998, the EC requested the establishment of a 
panel. At its meeting on 21 October 1998, the DSB established a panel. Japan reserved its third-party 
right. The DSB agreed that pursuant to Article 9. 1 of the DSU, a single panel would examine this 
dispute together with DS95 below. At the request  of the complainants, dated 10 February 1999, the 
Panel agreed, pursuant to Article 12.12 of the DSU,  to suspend the panel proceedings (which also 
applies to DS95 below). Since the panel was not  requested to resume its work, pursuant to 
Article 12.12 of the DSU, the authority for establis hment of the panel lapsed as of 11 February 2000 
(which also applies to DS95). WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 262 
 
 
  17. WT/DS77 – Argentina – Measures Affecting Textiles and Clothing 
Complaint by the European Communities. This request dated 17 April 19 97, is in respect of a range of 
specific duties on textiles and clothing which have a llegedly resulted in increased duties and have led 
to applied tariffs that exceed the 35% binding made  by Argentina. The EC contends that these 
measures are a violation of Argentina's commitments under Article II of GATT 1994, and also of 
Article 7 of the ATC. See similar US complaint in DS56 pending before a panel. On 10 September 
1997, the EC requested the establishment of a pane l. At its meeting on 16 October 1997, the DSB 
established a panel. The US reserved its third-part y rights. The Panel suspended its work at the 
request of the EC on 29 July 1998. Pursuant to DSU Article 12.12, the panel's authority lapsed on 29 
July 1999, 12 months having passed sin ce the suspension of the panel's work. 
18. WT/DS57 – Australia – Textile Clothing and Footwear Import Credit Scheme 
Complaint by the United States. This request, dated 7 October 1996, concerns a complaint by the US 
against subsidies being granted and maintained  by Australia on leather products under the TCF 
scheme. A violation of Article 3 of the SCM Agreemen t is alleged. The US is also invoking Article 30 
of the SCM Agreement to the extent that it inco rporates by reference Article XXIII:1 of GATT 1994. 
An official release from the USTR in Washington on 25 November 1996 indicates that the case has been settled. 
19. WT/DS49 – United States – Anti-Dumping Investigation Regarding Imports of Fresh or Chilled Tomatoes from Mexico 
Complaint by Mexico. On 1 July 1996, Mexico requested consultations with the United States 
regarding the anti-dumping investigation on fresh  and chilled tomatoes imported from Mexico under 
Article 17.3 of the Anti-dumping Agreement. Viol ations of GATT Articles VI and X as well as 
Articles 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7.1 of the Anti-dumping Agreemen t are alleged. Mexico claims this to be a case 
of urgency, where the expedited procedures under Ar ticles 4.8 and 4.9 of the DSU are applicable. US 
Commerce Department official releases indicate that the case has been settled. 
20. WT/DS39 – United States – Tariff Increases on Products from the European 
Communities 
Complaint by the European Communities. In its re quest for consultations, dated 17 April 1996, the 
EC claimed that the measures taken under the Pr esidential Proclamation No. 5759 of 24 December 
1987 (retaliation against the "hormones" directive) , which resulted in tariff increases on products from 
the European Communities, are inconsistent w ith GATT Articles I, II and XXIII, as well as DSU 
Articles 3, 22 and 23. On 19 June 1996, the EC requested the establishment of a panel. In its request, the EC further claimed that the United States apparent ly failed to "ensure the conformity of its laws, 
regulations and administrative procedures with its obligations" under the WTO, with respect to the 
application of Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Ac t in this case (WTO Agreement Article XVI:4). The 
United States withdrew the measure on 15 July 1 996, and the EC decided not to pursue its panel 
request, reserving its rights to reconvene, if necessary, a further meeting of the DSB at an early date. 
21. WT/DS38 – United States – The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 3 May 1996 the European Communities requested 
consultations with the United States concerning the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity 
(LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 and other legislation enact ed by the US Congress regarding trade sanctions 
against Cuba. The EC claims th at US trade restrictions on good s of Cuban origin, as well as the 
possible refusal of visas and the exclusion of non-US nationals from US territory, are inconsistent  WT/DS/OV/28 
 Page 263 
 
 
  with the US obligations under th e WTO Agreement. Violations of GATT Articles I, III, V, XI and 
XIII, and GATS Articles I, III, VI, XVI and XVII are alleged. The EC also alle ges that even if these 
measures by the US may not be in violation of specific provisions of GATT or GATS, they 
nevertheless nullify or impair its expected be nefits under GATT 1994 and GATS and impede the 
attainment of the objectives of GATT 1994. The European Communities requested the establishment 
of a panel on 3 October 1996. The DSB established a panel at its meeting on 20 November 1996. At 
the request of the EC, dated 21 April 1997, the Pane l suspended its work. The Panel's authority lapsed 
on 22 April 1998, pursuant to Article 12.12 of the DSU. 
22. WT/DS32 – United States – Measures Affecting Imports of Women's and Girls' Wool 
Coats 
Complaint by India. In a communication dated 14 March 1996, India requested the establishment of a panel, claiming that the transitional safeguard measu res on these textile products by the United States 
were inconsistent with ATC Articles 2, 6 and 8. A panel was established in the DSB meeting on 17 April 1996. However, on 25 April 1996, India requested  "termination of further action in pursuance of 
the decision taken by the DSB on 17 April 1996 to establish a panel" in light of the US removal of the 
safeguard measures on these products, which came into effect from 24 April 1996. 
23. WT/DS25 – European Communities – Implementation of the Uruguay Round 
Commitments Concerning Rice 
Complaint by Uruguay. This request for consultati ons, dated 18 December 1995, seems similar to the 
claim by Thailand (WT/DS17). 
24. WT/DS23 – Venezuela – Anti-Dumping Investigation in Respect of Imports of Certain 
Oil Country Tubular Goods (OCTG) 
Complaint by Mexico dated 5 December 1995. By a letter dated 6 May 1997, Mexico informed the 
Secretariat that Venezuela had terminated th e anti-dumping investigation in this matter. 
25. WT/DS17 – European Communities – Duties on Imports of Rice 
Complaint by Thailand. This request for consultati ons, dated 3 October 1995, covers more or less the 
same grounds as Canadian (WT/DS9) and the US (WT/DS13) complaints over the EC duties on grains.  In addition, Thailand seems to have alleged that the EC has violated the most-favoured-nation requirement under GATT Article I in their preferential treatment of 
basmati  rice from India and 
Pakistan. See also the Uruguayan complaint (WT/DS25). 
26. WT/DS15 – Japan – Measures Affecting the Purchase of Telecommunications Equipment 
Complaint by the European Communities. This request for consultations, dated 18 August 1995, 
claims that a 1994 agreement reached betwee n the United States and Japan concerning 
telecommunications equipment is inconsistent with GATT Articles I:1, III:4 and XVII:1(c), and 
nullifies or impairs benefits accruing to the EC. The United States has joined in the consultations. 
Although there has been no official notification, the case appears to have been settled bilaterally. 
27. WT/DS13 – European Communities – Duties on Imports of Grains 
Complaint by the United States. This request for consultations, dated 19 July 1995, has potentially 
broader product coverage than the case brought by Canada (WT/DS9, item 7(5)(a) below) but WT/DS/OV/28 
Page 264 
 
 
  otherwise concerns much the same issues. On 28 September 1995, the US requested the establishment 
of a panel to be considered at the meeting of the DSB on 11 October 1995, but the EC objected to it. 
The US again requested the establishment of a panel to be considered at the meeting of the DSB on 3 
December 1996, but later dropped the request at the meeting. On 13 February 1997 the US made a renewed request for the establishment of a pane l. At the DSB meeting on 20 March 1997, the US 
withdrew its request for a panel in  this matter. On 26 March 1997, the US made a fresh request for the 
establishment of a panel. On 30 April 1997, the US informed the Secretariat that it was withdrawing 
its request for a panel in view of the fact that the EC had adopted regulations implementing an agreement reached on this matter. 
28. WT/DS9 – European Communities – Duties on Imports of Cereals 
Complaint by Canada. Canada requested consultatio ns with the EC on 10 July 1995 concerning EC 
regulations implementing some of the EC's Ur uguay Round concessions on agriculture, specifically, 
regulations which impose a duty on wheat imports based on reference prices rather than transaction values, with the result that the duty-paid import pr ice for Canadian wheat will be greater than the 
effective intervention price increased by 55% when ever the transaction value is greater than the 
representative price. A panel was established at the DSB meeting on 11 October 1995, but no 
panelists have been selected until now. 
29. WT/DS1 – Malaysia – Prohibition of Imports of Polyethylene and Polypropylene 
Complaint by Singapore. This, the first dispute unde r the WTO's dispute settlement procedures, was 
settled on 19 July 1995, with Singapore's  withdrawal of the panel request. 
 
__________