RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DSB/M/233 
25 June 2007 
 
 (07-2661) 
Dispute Settlement Body 
4 June 2007  
 
 
 
MINUTES OF MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard  
on 4 June 2007  
 
Chairman:  Mr. Bruce Gosper (Australia) 
  
Subjects discussed
: Page  
 
1. United States – Sunset reviews of anti-dumping measures on oil country tubular 
goods from Argentina........................................................................................................... ....1 
(a) Recourse to Article 22.2 of  the DSU by Argentina ....................................................................1  
2. United States – Continued existence and application of zeroing methodology ...................2  
(a) Request for the establishment of a pa nel by the European Communities...................................2  
3. India – Additional and extra-additional duties on imports from the United States ...........3  
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by the United States ...................................................3  
 
 
1. United States – Sunset reviews of anti-dumpi ng measures on oil country tubular goods 
from Argentina  
 
(a) Recourse to Article 22.2 of the DSU by Argentina (WT/DS268/24)  
1. The Chairman  drew attention to the communication from Argentina contained in document 
WT/DS268/24, and invited the repr esentative of Argentina to speak. 
 
2. The representative of Argentina  said that his country had come twice before the DSB 
regarding the measures imposed against the OCTG fr om Argentina.  The first time, it had been in 
connection with the first sunset review of the or der, and then, Argentina had succeeded on its claim 
that the measure maintained by th e United States was inconsistent with the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  
The second time, it had challenged the Section 129(b)  determination made by the United States in 
connection with the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in the first case, and Argentina 
had succeeded once again, and the measure taken to  comply had been accordingly declared to be 
WTO-inconsistent as well.  In accordance with th e mutual agreement on sequencing signed in 2006, 
and pursuant to Article 22.2 of the DSU, Argen tina had requested on 24 May 2007, authorization 
from the DSB to suspend concessions, until the United States fully implemented the DSB's 
recommendations, as it had declared at the 11 May DSB meeting that it was its intention to do so. 
 WT/DSB/M/233 
Page 2  
 
  3. Between Argentina's request then, and the pr esent meeting, Argentina had noted that on 
31 May 2007 the US International Trade Commission  (USITC) had voted negatively on the issue of 
whether the revocation of the order would lead to th e continuation or recurrence of injury.  That was 
really good news, and Argentina celebrated it.  On 1 June, the United States had filed its objection to 
the level of suspension of concessions requested by  Argentina, thus having the matter referred to 
arbitration, pursuant to Article 22.6 of the DSU as  a consequence.  While Argentina remained firmly 
determined to keep arguing its case, at each and every stage provided for by the DSU, it was truly 
optimistic that following the vote in the USITC, the US Department of Commerce would, at last, proceed to revoke the order imposed on Argentina in 1995, the main objective of the actions pursued 
by Argentina throughout those years to date. 
 
4. The representative of the United States
 said that, on 21 May 2007, Argentina had requested 
that the DSB authorize it to suspend tariff conces sions and related obligations under the GATT 1994.  
On 1 June 2007, the United States had objected to the level of suspension of concessions or other 
obligations proposed by Argentina.  The United Stat es and Argentina agreed that the matter had been 
thereby referred to arbitration pursuant to Article  22.6 of the DSU.  While the parties had, on 
1 June 2007, already asked the Secretariat to c ontact the original panelists to determine their 
availability to serve as the Arbitrator, the Unite d States believed it would not prove necessary to 
complete this arbitration.  That was because on 31 May 2007, the US International Trade Commission 
had made a negative determination of  likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury in its sunset 
review concerning Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina.  The anti-dumping order would 
therefore be revoked.  The United States looked forw ard to continuing to cooperate with Argentina to 
resolve this matter.   5. The DSB took note
 of the statements and the agreement of  the parties that the matter raised by 
the United States in WT/DS268/25 has been referred to  arbitration, as required by Article 22.6 of the 
DSU. 
 
2. United States – Continued existence and application of zeroing methodology 
 
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by the European Communities (WT/DS350/6) 
 
6. The Chairman  recalled that the DSB had considered this matter at its meeting on 
22 May 2007, and had agreed to revert to it.  He drew attention to the communication from the 
European Communities contained in document WT /DS350/6, and invited the representative of the 
European Communities to speak.  
7. The representative of the European Communities
 said that, as Members were aware, this was 
the second request for a panel in the present case.  The EC had explained, in some detail, at the 
22 May 2007 DSB meeting, the reasons behind the current request and would not repeat them in 
detail at the present meeting.  It sufficed to note that the Appellate Body had established a consistent 
line of interpretation of the provisions at issue, from which the United States had refused to draw the inevitable consequences.  The EC would have pref erred to avoid a further dispute, but in these 
circumstances it had no alternative other than to c onfirm, at the present meeting, its request for the 
establishment of a panel.  8. The representative of the United States
 said that, as his delegation had previously noted in the 
DSB, the United States was no longer performing av erage-to-average comparisons in anti-dumping 
investigations without offsets.  In addition, the United States was considering the issue of zeroing in 
assessment reviews in the context of a separate dispute.  The reasonable period of time in that dispute would end on 24 December 2007.  While the Un ited States understood that a panel would be 
established at the present meeting, it continued to co nsider that the EC's request was premature.  The  WT/DSB/M/233 
 Page 3 
 
 
  United States would also note that the EC's panel request included a number of assessment reviews 
and sunset reviews that had not been consulted upon.  9. The DSB took note
 of the statements and agreed  to establish a panel in accordance with the 
provisions of Article 6 of the DSU w ith standard terms of reference. 
 
10. The representatives of the India , Japan , Mexico  and Chinese Taipei  reserved their third-party 
rights to participate in the Panel's proceedings. 
3. India – Additional and extra-additional duties on imports from the United States 
 (a) Request for the establishment of a panel by the United States (WT/DS360/5) 
11. The Chairman
 drew attention to the communication from the United States contained in 
document WT/DS360/5, and invited the representative of the United States to speak.  12. The representative of the United States
 said that, as described in the US panel request of 
24 May 2007, the United States was concerned with an additional duty and an extra additional duty 
that India imposed on imports from the United States,  in particular on imports of wine and distilled 
spirits.  The additional duty and extra additional dut y, individually and in combination, subjected 
imports of the United States to ordinary customs duti es or other duties or charges in excess of those in 
India's WTO Tariff Schedule.  The United States, th erefore, considered that each of the additional 
duty and the extra additional duty was inconsistent with Article II:1(a) and (b) of the GATT 1994. 
India and the United States had held consultations  on these issues on 13 April 2007, but unfortunately, 
those consultations had failed to resolve the US c oncerns.  Accordingly, the United States requested 
that the DSB establish a panel to examine these ma tters, pursuant to Article 6 of the DSU, with 
standard terms of reference.  And, finally, the United States noted that, on 24 April 2007, the DSB had 
established a panel to consider the EC's claims with  respect to the additional duty and extra additional 
duty on wine and distilled spirits.  In this connecti on, the United States called attention to Article 9.3 
of the DSU.  Pursuant to that provision, to the great est extent possible, the panelists in the US and EC 
disputes shall be the same, and the time-table in each dispute shall be harmonized, as had recently 
been done in the disputes brought separately by Tha iland and India relating to certain US measures on 
shrimp (DS343 & DS345).  
13. The representative of India
 said that her country had received the US request for the 
establishment of a panel.  India considered it very unfortunate and disappointing that the United States 
had chosen to pursue this matter by requesting th e establishment of a panel.  Both India and the 
United States had had constructive and effective consultations in Geneva during April 2007 and 
several issues that had been thro wn up during these consultations had been discussed by the parties.  
Both sides had agreed to work for a mutually acceptable solution to resolve the issues discussed 
during the consultations.  In addition, India was se riously considering to take steps to resolve the 
issues so that a mutually accepta ble solution could be reached betw een the parties.  The US panel 
request was thus premature and India could not ag ree to the establishment of a panel at the present 
meeting.  Therefore, India rejected the US  request for the establishment of a panel. 
 
14. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter. 
  
__________