WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DS/OV/25 
12 December 2005 
 (05-5867) 
  
  
 
 
UPDATE OF WTO DISPUTE SETTLEMENT CASES 
 
NOTE : This summary has been prepared by the Secret ariat under its own res ponsibility.  The summary 
is for general information only and is not inte nded to affect the rights and obligations of 
Members. 
 
NEW DEVELOPMENTS SINCE LAST UPDATE 
(FROM 2 JUNE 2005 UNTIL 1 DECEMBER 2005) 
 
WT/DS No. Short Title Action Section 
WT/DS335 
 United States – Anti-Dumping 
Measure on Shrimp from Ecuador Request for consultations  
Request to join consultations I.A.1 
WT/DS334 Turkey – Measures Affecting the 
Importation of Rice Request for consultations 
Request to join consultations I.A.2 
WT/DS333 
 Dominican Republic – Exchange Rate 
Fee Affecting Imports from Costa Rica Request for consultations 
Request to join consultations  
Acceptance of request to join consultations I.A.3 
WT/DS332 Brazil – Measures Affecting Imports 
of Retreaded Tyres Request for consultations 
Request to join consultations  
Acceptance of request to join consultations 
Request for establishment of a panel I.A.4 
WT/DS331 
 Mexico – Anti-Dumping Duties on 
Steel Pipes and Tubes from Guatemala Request for consultations  I.A.5 
WT/DS329 
 Panama – Tariff Classification of 
Certain Milk Products Notification of Mutually Agreed Solution VII.A.1 
WT/DS328 
 EC – Definitive Safeguard Measure on 
Salmon  Withdrawal of request for consultations  VII.B.1 
WT/DS327 
 Egypt – Matches  Request for establishment of a panel 
Establishment of a panel II.A.1 
WT/DS321 Canada – Continued Suspension  Constitution of the Panel II.A.4 
WT/DS320 US – Continued Suspension  Constitution of the Panel II.A.5 
WT/DS317  EC and Certain Member States –Trade 
in Large Civil Aircraft  Establishment of a panel  
Initiation of Annex V procedure  
Constitution of the Panel  II.A.6 
WT/DS316 US – Trade in Large Civil Aircraft Establishment of a panel  
Initiation of Annex V procedure 
Constitution of the Panel II.A.7 
WT/DS312 
 Korea – Certain Paper  Circulation of Panel Report 
Adoption of Panel Report V.A.1 
WT/DS309 
 China – Value-Added Tax on 
Integrated Circuits   Notification of Mutually Agreed Solution VII.A.3 
WT/DS308 Mexico – Taxes on Soft Drinks   Circulation of Panel Report  III.A.1 
WT/DS302 Dominican Republic – Import and Sale 
of Cigarettes Information on intention to implement 
Appointment of arbitrator under Article 21.3(c) 
Agreement on RPT between parties  V.A.2 WT/DS/OV/25 
Page ii  
 
 WT/DS No. Short Title Action Section 
WT/DS301 EC – Commercial Vessels Adoption of Panel Report 
Information on implementation V.A.3 
WT/DS299 
 EC – Countervailing Measures on 
DRAM Chips Circulation of Panel Report 
Adoption of Panel Report 
Information on intention to implement 
Agreement on RPT under Article 21.3(b) V.A.4 
WT/DS298 
 Mexico – Certain Pricing Measures for 
Customs Valuation Withdrawal of request for consultations VII.B.3 
WT/DS296 
 US – Countervailing Duty 
Investigation on DRAMs Circulation of Appellate Body Report 
Adoption of Appellate Body and Panel Reports 
Information of intention to implement 
Agreement on RPT under Article 21.3(b) V.A.5 
WT/DS295 
 Mexico – Anti-Dumping Measures on 
Rice  Circulation of Panel Report  
Notification of appeal  
Circulation of Appellate Body Report  III.C.1 
WT/DS294 
 US – Zeroing (EC)  Circul ation of Panel Report III.A.2 
WT/DS290 
WT/DS174 EC – Trademarks and Geographical 
Indications Agreement on RPT under Article 21.3(b) VI.36 
WT/DS286 
WT/DS269 EC – Chicken Cuts  Notification of Appeal 
Circulation of Appellate Body Report 
Adoption of Appellate Body and Panel Reports 
Information of intention to implement 
Request for arbitration under Article 21.3 (c) V.A.11 
VI.9 
WT/DS285 US – Gambling  Agreement on RPT under Article 21.3(b) VI.5 
WT/DS283 WT/DS266 
WT/DS265 EC – Export Subsidies on Sugar  Information on intention to implement 
Circulation of Arbitrator's Award under 
Article 21.3(c) Statements regarding implementation VI.12 
WT/DS282  
 US – Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil 
Country Tubular Goods Circulation of Panel Report  
Notification of appeal 
Circulation of Appellate Body Report Adoption of Appellate Body and Panel 
Reports V.A.7 
WT/DS277 US – Softwood Lumber VI Circulation of Article 21.5 Panel Report 
 III.B.1 
WT/DS276 Canada – Wheat Exports and Grain 
Imports Announcement on implementation VI.7 
WT/DS268 US – Oil Country Tubular Goods 
Sunset Reviews  Circulation of Arbitrator's Award under 
Article 21.3(c)  VI.10 
WT/DS267 US – Upland Cotton  Recourse to SCM Article 4.10 and DSU 
Article 22.2. Understanding on Procedures under DSU 
Articles 21 and 22 and SCM Article 4  
Referral to Arbitration under DSU 
Article 22.6 and SCM Article 4.11 
Suspension of Arbitration Proceedings Recourse to SCM Article 7.9 and DSU 
Article 22.2. 
Referral to Arbitration under DSU 22.6 and SCM Article 7.10 
Suspension of Arbitration Proceedings  
 VI.11  WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page iii 
 
 
 WT/DS No. Short Title Action Section 
WT/DS264 US – Softwood Lumber V 
 Appointment of a new Chairman to the 
Panel II.B.i 
WT/DS257 
 US – Softwood Lumber IV Circulation of Article 21.5 Panel Report 
Notification of appeal  IV:B.1 
WT/DS246 EC – Tariff Preferences Announcement on implementation VI.16 
WT/DS245 
 Japan – Apples  Circulation of Article 21.5 Panel Report  
Adoption of Article 21.5 Panel Report Notification of Mutually Agreed Solution V.B.1 
VII.A.7 
WT/DS217 US – Offset Act (Byrd Amendment) Notification of suspending concessions VI.22 
WT/DS212 
 US – Countervailing Measures on 
Certain EC Products   Circulation of Article 21.5 Panel Report 
Adoption of Article 21.5 Panel Report  V.B.2 
WT/DS204 Mexico – Telecoms Announcement on implementation VI.28 
WT/DS184 US – Hot-Rolled Steel Understanding regarding Article 22 VI.32 
WT/DS108 US – FSC Circulation of Article 21.5 Panel Report 
Notification of appeal  IV.B.2 
WT/DS27 
 EC – Bananas III Requests for consultations under 
Article 21.5 VI.71 
 
 
STATISTICAL OVERVIEW 
 
 Complaints 
notified to the 
WTO1 Active 
Panels2 Appellate Body 
and Panel Reports 
Adopted3 Mutually Agreed 
Solutions Other Settled 
or Inactive4 
Disputes  
Reporting 
period/ date since 1.1.1995 on reporting 
date since 1.1.1995 since 1.1.1995 since 1.1.1995 
Number  335 20 95 52 29 
EXPLANATORY NOTES: 
 1 This category encompasses all requests for consultati ons notified to the WTO, including those requests which 
have led to panel and appe llate review proceedings.    
2 This category encompasses pending or suspended panel pr oceedings or appellate revi ew proceedings, with the 
exception of proceedings pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. 
3 This category does not include reports resulting from proceedings pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. 
4 This category includes cases where the contested measur e has been terminated, a pa nel request was withdrawn, 
etc. 
 
 
 Active 
Compliance 
Panels1 Adopted Appellate 
Body and Panel 
Compliance Reports2 Arbitrations on 
Level of Suspension 
of Concessions3  WTO 
Authorizations of 
Suspension of 
Concessions4 
Reporting 
period/ date on reporting date since 1.1.1995 since 1.1.1995 since 1.1.1995 
Number  3 14 16 15 
EXPLANATORY NOTES: 
1 This category encompasses pending or suspended pa nel or appellate review proceedings pursuant to Article 21.5 
of the DSU. 
2 This category includes reports resulting from pr oceedings under Article 21.5 of the DSU. 
3 This category covers arbitration procee dings pursuant to Article 22.6 and 22.7 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the 
Subsidies Agreement. 
4 This category covers author izations granted by the WTO pursuant to Ar ticle 22.7 of the DSU and Article 4.10 of 
the Subsidies Agreement. 
 WT/DS/OV/25 
Page iv  
 
  
ANALYSIS OF COMPLAINTS BY DEVELOPED/DEVELOPING MEMBERS 
 
COMPLAINTS BY DEVELOPED COUNTRY MEMBERS 
Respondents – Developed 127 
Respondents – Developing 77 
COMPLAINTS BY DEVELOPING COUNTRY MEMBERS 
Respondents – Developed 72 
Respondents – Developing 53 
COMPLAINTS BY BOTH DEVELOPED AND DEVELOPING COUNTRY MEMBERS 
Respondents – Developed 6 
Respondents – Developing 0 
  WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page v 
 
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
I. CONSULTATIONS REQUESTED – NO PANEL ESTABLISHED NOR 
SETTLEMENT NOTIFIED ....................................................................................................1  
A. YEAR  2005 .........................................................................................................................1  
1. WT/DS335 – United States – Anti-Dumping Measure on Shrimp from Ecuador ......................................................................................................................1
 
2. WT/DS334 – Turkey – Measures Affecting the Importation of Rice ...................1  
3. WT/DS333 – Dominican Republic – Foreign Exchange Fee Affecting Imports from Costa Rica ..........................................................................................2
 
4. WT/DS332 – Brazil – Measures Affecting Imports of Retreaded Tyres ..............2  
5. WT/DS331 – Mexico – Anti-Dumping Duties on Steel Pipes and Tubes from Guatemala.........................................................................................................3
 
6. WT/DS330 – Argentina – Countervailing Duties on Olive Oil, Wheat Gluten and Peaches ...................................................................................................3
 
7. WT/DS325 – United States – Anti-Dumping Determinations regarding Stainless Steel from Mexico ......................................................................................3
 
B. YEAR  2004 .........................................................................................................................4  
1. WT/DS324 – United States – Provisional Anti-Dumping Measures on Shrimp from Thailand ..............................................................................................4
 
2. WT/DS319 – United States – Section 776 of the Tariff Act of 1930......................4  
3. WT/DS318 – India – Anti-Dumping Me asures on Certain Products from 
the Separate Customs Territory of Ta iwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu...........5  
4. WT/DS314 – Mexico – Provisional Co untervailing Measures on Olive Oil 
from the European  Communities.............................................................................6  
5. WT/DS311 – United States – Reviews of Countervailing Duty on 
Softwood Lumber from Canada ..............................................................................7  
6. WT/DS310 – United States – Determination of the International Trade 
Commission in Hard Red Spring Wheat from Canada .........................................7  
7. WT/DS307 – European Communities – Aid for Commercial Vessels..................7  
8. WT/DS306 – India – Anti-Dumping Measure on Batteries from Bangladesh .................................................................................................................8
 
C. YEAR  2003 .........................................................................................................................9  
1. WT/DS304 – India – Anti-Dumping Measures on Imports of Certain Products from the Eu ropean Communities ............................................................9
 
2. WT/DS303 – Ecuador – Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of 
Medium Density Fibreboard ..................................................................................10  
3. WT/DS300 – Dominican Republic – Measures Affecting the Importation of Cigarettes .............................................................................................................10
 
4. WT/DS297 – Croatia – Measures Affecting Imports of Live Animals and Meat Products..........................................................................................................11
 
5. WT/DS289 – Czech Republic – Additional Duty on Imports of Pig-Meat from Poland..............................................................................................................11
 
6. WT/DS288 – South Africa – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Blanketing from Turkey .........................................................................................12
 
D. YEAR  2002 .......................................................................................................................12  
1. WT/DS279 – India – Import Restrictions Maintained Under the Export and Import Policy 2002-2007..................................................................................12
 WT/DS/OV/25 
Page vi  
 
 2.
 WT/DS278 – Chile – Definitive Sa feguard Measure on Imports of 
Fructose ....................................................................................................................12  
3. WT/DS275 – Venezuela – Import Licensing Measures on Certain Agricultural Products .............................................................................................13
 
4. WT/DS274 – United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports 
of Certain Steel Products ........................................................................................14  
5. WT/DS272 – Peru – Provisional Anti-Dumping Duties on Vegetable Oils 
from Argentina ........................................................................................................14  
6. WT/DS271 – Australia – Certain Measures Affecting the Importation of Fresh Pineapple .......................................................................................................14
 
7. WT/DS263 – European Communities – Measures Affecting Imports of Wine..........................................................................................................................1 5
 
8. WT/DS262 – United States – Sunset Reviews of Anti-Dumping and 
Countervailing Duties on Certain Steel Products from France and Germany...................................................................................................................15
 
9. WT/DS256 – Turkey – Import Ban on Pet Food from Hungary ........................16  
10. WT/DS247 – United States – Provisional Anti-Dumping Measure on Imports of Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada ...........................................16
 
E. YEAR  2001 .......................................................................................................................16  
1. WT/DS242 – European Communities – Generalized System of Preferences...............................................................................................................16
 
2. WT/DS239 – United States – Anti-Dumping Duties on Silicon Metal from Brazil ........................................................................................................................1 7
 
3. WT/DS233 – Argentina – Measures affecting the Import of 
Pharmaceutical Products........................................................................................17  
4. WT/DS230 – Chile – Safeguard Measures and Modification of Schedules 
Regarding Sugar......................................................................................................18  
5. WT/DS229 – Brazil – Anti-Dumping Duties on Jute Bags from India...............18  
6. WT/DS226 – Chile – Provisional Safeguard Measure on Mixtures of 
Edible Oils................................................................................................................19  
7. WT/DS225 – United States – Anti-Dumping Duties on Seamless Pipe from Italy..................................................................................................................19
 
8. WT/DS224 – United States – US Patents Code.....................................................20  
9. WT/DS223 – European Communities – Tariff-Rate Quota on Corn Gluten Feed from th e United States.......................................................................20
 
10. WT/DS220 – Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard Measures 
Relating to Certain Agricultural Products............................................................20  
F. YEAR  2000 .......................................................................................................................21  
1. WT/DS218 – United States – Countervailing Duties on Certain Carbon Steel Products from Brazil......................................................................................21
 
2. WT/DS216 – Mexico – Provisional Anti-Dumping Measure on Electric Transformers ...........................................................................................................21
 
3. WT/DS215 – Philippines – Anti-Dumping Measures Regarding 
Polypropylene Resins from Korea .........................................................................22  
4. WT/DS209 – European Communities – Measures Affecting Soluble 
Coffee........................................................................................................................2 2 
5. WT/DS208 – Turkey – Anti-Dumping Duty on Steel and Iron Pipe 
Fittings......................................................................................................................2 2 
6. WT/DS205 – Egypt – Import Prohibition on Canned Tuna with SoyBean 
Oil............................................................................................................................ ..23 
7. WT/DS203 – Mexico – Measures Affecting Trade in Live Swine .......................23   WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page vii 
 
 
 8. WT/DS201 – Nicaragua – Measures Affecting Imports from Honduras 
and Colombia...........................................................................................................23  
9. WT/DS200 – United States – Section 306 of the Trade Act 1974 and Amendments thereto ...............................................................................................23
 
10. WT/DS197 – Brazil – Measures on Minimum Import Prices..............................24  
11. WT/DS191 – Ecuador – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measure on Cement from Mexico .............................................................................................................24
 
12. WT/DS187 – Trinidad and Tobago – Provisional Anti-Dumping Measure on Macaroni and Spaghetti from Costa Rica........................................................24
 
13. WT/DS186 – United States – Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 and 
Amendments thereto ...............................................................................................25  
G. YEAR  1999 .......................................................................................................................25  
1. WT/DS185 – Trinidad and Tobago – Anti-Dumping Measures on Pasta 
from Costa Rica.......................................................................................................25  
2. WT/DS183 – Brazil – Measures on Import Licensing and Minimum 
Import Prices ...........................................................................................................25  
3. WT/DS182 – Ecuador – Provisional Anti-Dumping Measure on Cement 
from Mexico .............................................................................................................25  
4. WT/DS180 – United States – Reclassification of Certain Sugar Syrups ............26  
5. WT/DS173 – France – Measures Relating to the Development of a Flight Management System ...............................................................................................26
 
6. WT/DS172 – European Communities – Measures relating to the Development of a Flight Management system ......................................................26
 
7. WT/DS168 – South Africa – Anti-Dumping Duties on Certain Pharmaceutical Products from India ....................................................................26
 
8. WT/DS167 – United States – Countervailing Duty Investigation with 
respect to Live Cattle from Canada.......................................................................27  
9. WT/DS159 – Hungary – Safeguard Measure on Imports of Steel 
Products from th e Czech Republic ........................................................................27  
10. WT/DS158 – European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale 
and Distribution of Bananas...................................................................................28  
11. WT/DS157 – Argentina – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Imports 
of Drill Bits from Italy.............................................................................................28  
H. YEAR  1998 .......................................................................................................................28  
1. WT/DS154 – European Communities – Measures Affecting Differential 
and Favourable Treatment of Coffee ....................................................................28  
2. WT/DS153 – European Communities – Patent Protection for 
Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical Products.........................................29  
3. WT/DS150 – India – Measures A ffecting Customs Duties ..................................29  
4. WT/DS149 – India – Import Restrictions .............................................................29  
5. WT/DS148 – Czech Republic – Measure Affecting Import Duty on 
Wheat from Hungary..............................................................................................29  
6. WT/DS147 – Japan – Tariff Quotas and Subsidies Affecting Leather...............30  
7. WT/DS145 – Argentina – Countervailing Duties on Imports of Wheat Gluten from the European Communities..............................................................30
 
8. WT/DS144 – United States – Certain Measures Affecting the Import of Cattle, Swine and Grain from Canada ..................................................................30
 
9. WT/DS143 – Slovak Republic- Measure Affecting Import Duty on Wheat 
from Hungary ..........................................................................................................31  
10. WT/DS140 – European Communities – Anti-dumping Investigations 
Regarding Unbleached Cotton Fabrics from India..............................................31  WT/DS/OV/25 
Page viii  
 
 11.
 WT/DS137 – European Communities – Measures Affecting Imports of 
Wood of Conifers from Canada .............................................................................31  
12. WT/DS134 – European Communities – Restrictions on Certain Import Duties on Rice ..........................................................................................................32
 
13. WT/DS133 – Slovak Republic – Measures Concerning the Importation of 
Dairy Products and the Transit of Cattle..............................................................32  
14. WT/DS131 – France – Certain Income Tax Measures Constituting 
Subsidies...................................................................................................................32  
15. WT/DS130 – Ireland – Certain Income Tax Measures Constituting Subsidies...................................................................................................................32
 
16. WT/DS129 – Greece – Certain Inco me Tax Measures Constituting 
Subsidies...................................................................................................................32  
17. WT/DS128 – Netherlands – Certain Income Tax Measures Constituting Subsidies...................................................................................................................33
 
18. WT/DS127 – Belgium – Certain Income Tax Measures Constituting 
Subsidies...................................................................................................................33  
19. WT/DS123 – Argentina – Safeguard Me asures on Imports of Footwear...........33  
20. WT/DS120 – India – Measures Affecting Export of Certain Commodities .......33  
21. WT/DS118 – United States – Harbour Maintenance Tax....................................33  
22. WT/DS117 – Canada – Measures Affecting Film Distribution Services ............33  
23. WT/DS116 – Brazil – Measures Affecting Payment Terms for Imports............34  
I. YEAR  1997 .......................................................................................................................34  
1. WT/DS112 – Peru – Countervailing Du ty Investigation against Imports 
of Buses from Brazil ................................................................................................34  
2. WT/DS111 – United States – Tariff Rate Quota for Imports of Groundnuts ..............................................................................................................34
 
3. WT/DS109 – Chile – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages.............................................34  
4. WT/DS107 – Pakistan – Export Measures Affecting Hides and Skins...............34  
5. WT/DS105 – European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas...................................................................................34
 
6. WT/DS104 – European Communities – Measures Affecting the Exportation of Processed Cheese ...........................................................................35
 
7. WT/DS100 – United States – Measures Affecting Imports of Poultry Products....................................................................................................................35
 
8. WT/DS97 – United States – Countervailing Duty Investigation of Imports of Salmon from Chile................................................................................35
 
9. WT/DS81 – Brazil – Certain Measures Affecting Trade and Investment 
in the Automotive Sector ........................................................................................35  
10. WT/DS80 – Belgium – Measures Affecting Commercial Telephone 
Directory Services....................................................................................................35  
11. WT/DS78 – United States – Safeguard Measure Against Imports of Broom Corn Brooms ...............................................................................................36
 
12. WT/DS71 – Canada – Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft.......36  
13. WT/DS66 – Japan – Measures Affecting Imports of Pork ..................................36  
14. WT/DS65 – Brazil – Certain Measures Affecting Trade and Investment in the Automotive Sector ........................................................................................36
 
J. YEAR  1996 .......................................................................................................................36  
1. WT/DS63 – United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Imports of Solid 
Urea from the Former G erman Democratic Republic.........................................36  
2. WT/DS61 – United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and 
Shrimp Products......................................................................................................37   WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page ix 
 
 
 3. WT/DS53 – Mexico – Customs Valuation of Imports..........................................37  
4. WT/DS52 – Brazil – Certain Measures Affecting Trade and Investment 
in the Automotive Sector ........................................................................................37  
5. WT/DS51 – Brazil – Certain Automotive Investment Measures ........................37  
6. WT/DS47 – Turkey – Restrictions on Imports of Textile and Clothing 
Products....................................................................................................................37  
7. WT/DS45 – Japan – Measures Affecting Distribution Services..........................37  
8. WT/DS41 – Korea – Measures Concerning Inspection of Agricultural 
Products....................................................................................................................38  
9. WT/DS30 – Brazil – Countervailing Duties on Imports of Desiccated 
Coconut and Coconut Milk Powder from Sri Lanka...........................................38  
10. WT/DS29 – Turkey – Restrictions on Imports of Textile and Clothing 
Products....................................................................................................................38  
K. YEAR  1995 .......................................................................................................................38  
1. WT/DS16 – European Communities – Re gime for the Importation, Sale 
and Distribution of Bananas...................................................................................38  
2. WT/DS3 – Korea – Measures Concerning the Testing and Inspection of 
Agricultural Products .............................................................................................38  
II. PANELS ESTABLISHED BY DSB/ REPORTS NOT YET CIRCULATED....................39  
A. ORIGINAL PANELS .............................................................................................................39  
1. WT/DS327 – Egypt – Anti-Dumping Duties on Matches from Pakistan ...........39  
2. WT/DS323 – Japan – Import Quotas on Dried Laver and Seasoned 
Laver.........................................................................................................................3 9 
3. WT/DS322 – United States – Measures Relating to Zeroing and Sunset 
Reviews.....................................................................................................................39  
4. WT/DS321 – Canada – Continued Suspension of Obligations in the EC – 
Hormones Dispute ...................................................................................................41  
5. WT/DS320 – United States – Continued Suspension of Obligations in the 
EC – Hormones Dispute..........................................................................................41  
6. WT/DS317 – United States – Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft.....................................................................................................................42
 
7. WT/DS316 – European Communities and Certain Member States – 
Measures Affecting Trade in  Large Civil Aircraft...............................................43  
8. WT/DS315 – European Communities – Selected Customs Matters ...................44  
9. WT/DS291, WT/DS292, WT/DS293 – European Communities – 
Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products .............45  
10. WT/DS287 – Australia – Quarantine Regime for Imports..................................46  
11. WT/DS281 – United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Cement from Mexico ......................................................................................................................47
 
12. WT/DS280 – United States – Countervailing Duties on Steel Plate from Mexico ......................................................................................................................48
 
13. WT/DS270 – Australia – Certain Measures Affecting the Importation of Fresh Fruit and Vegetables ....................................................................................48
 
14. WT/DS260 – European Communities – Provisional Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certai n Steel Products ....................................................................49
 
15. WT/DS214 – United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports 
of Steel Wire Rod and Circular Welded Quality Line Pipe ................................49  
16. WT/DS195 – Philippines – Measures Affecting Trade and Investment in 
the Motor Vehicle Industry ....................................................................................50  WT/DS/OV/25 
Page x  
 
 17.
 WT/DS188 – Nicaragua – Measures Affecting Imports from Honduras 
and Colombia...........................................................................................................50  
18. WT/DS164 – Argentina – Measures Affecting Imports of Footwear..................51  
B. ACTIVE COMPLIANCE PANELS ..........................................................................................51  
1. WT/DS264 – United States – Final Dumping Determination on Softwood 
Lumber from Canada .............................................................................................51  
III. REPORTS CIRCULATED BUT NOT YET ADOPTED BY THE DSB...........................52  
A. ORIGINAL PANEL REPORTS ...............................................................................................52  
1. WT/DS308 – Mexico – Tax Measures on Soft Drinks and Other 
Beverages..................................................................................................................52  
2. WT/DS294 – United States – Laws, Regulations and Methodology for Calculating Dumping Margins (Zeroing)..............................................................52
 
B. COMPLIANCE PANEL REPORTS (ARTICLE 21.5) ................................................................54  
1. WT/DS277 – United States – Investigation of the International Trade Commission in Softwood Lumber from Canada..................................................54
 
C. APPELLATE BODY REPORTS ..............................................................................................55  
1. WT/DS295 – Mexico – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Beef and Rice ........................................................................................................................... 55
 
D. APPELLATE BODY COMPLIANCE REPORTS (ARTICLE 21.5)..............................................56  
IV. REPORTS CURRENTLY UNDER APPEAL .....................................................................56  
A. ORIGINAL PANEL REPORTS ...............................................................................................56  
B. COMPLIANCE PANEL REPORTS (ARTICLE 21.5) ................................................................56  
1. WT/DS257 – United States – Final Countervailing Duty Determination 
with respect to certain Softwood Lumber from Canada .....................................56  
2. WT/DS108 – United States – Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations"..........................................................................................................57
 
V. COMPLETED PANEL AND APPELLATE BODY REVIEW..........................................57  
A. APPELLATE BODY AND PANEL REPORTS ADOPTED .........................................................57  
1. WT/DS312 – Korea – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Certain Paper from Indonesia.........................................................................................................57
 
2. WT/DS302 – Dominican Republic – Measures Affecting the Importation and Internal Sale of Cigarettes...............................................................................59
 
3. WT/DS301 – European Communities – Measures Affecting Trade in Commercial Vessels.................................................................................................61
 
4. WT/DS299 – European Communities – Countervailing Measures on Dynamic Random Access Memory Chips from Korea ........................................62
 
5. WT/DS296 – United States – Countervailing Duty Investigation on 
Dynamic Random Access  Memory Semiconductors (DRAMs) from 
Korea ........................................................................................................................64  
6. WT/DS285 – United States – Measu res Affecting the Cross-Border 
Supply of Gambling and Betting Services.............................................................66  
7. WT/DS282 – United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods (OCTG)  from Mexico...................................................................68
 
8. WT/DS277 – United States – Investigation of the International Trade 
Commission in Softwood Lumber from Canada..................................................69  
9. WT/DS276 – Canada – Measures Rela ting to Exports of Wheat and 
Treatment of Imported Grain ................................................................................70  
10. WT/DS273 – Korea – Measures Affecting Trade in Commercial Vessels .........71   WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page xi 
 
 
 11. WT/DS269, WT/DS286 – European Communities – Customs 
Classification of Frozen  Boneless Chicken Cuts...................................................72  
12. WT/DS268 – United States – Sunset Reviews of Anti-Dumping Measures 
on Oil Country Tubular G oods from Argentina ..................................................74  
13. WT/DS267 – United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton..................................76  
14. WT/DS265, WT/DS266, WT/DS283 – European Communities – Export 
Subsidies on Sugar...................................................................................................79  
15. WT/DS264 – United States – Final Dumping Determination on Softwood Lumber from Canada .............................................................................................83
 
16. WT/DS257 – United States – Final Countervailing Duty Determination 
with respect to certain Softwood Lumber from Canada .....................................84  
17. WT/DS248, WT/DS249, WT/DS251, WT/DS252, WT/DS253, WT/DS254, 
WT/DS258, WT/DS259 – United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certai n Steel Products ....................................................................85
 
18. WT/DS246 – European Communities – Conditions for the Granting of 
Tariff Preferences to Developing Countries..........................................................89  
19. WT/DS245 – Japan – Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples ...............90  
20. WT/DS244 – United States – Sunset Review of Anti-Dumping Duties on 
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan ............................91  
21. WT/DS243 – United States – Rules of Origin for Textiles and Apparel Products....................................................................................................................93
 
22. WT/DS241 – Argentina – Definitive Anti-Dumping Duties on Poultry from Brazil ...............................................................................................................94
 
23. WT/DS238 – Argentina – Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of 
Preserved Peaches ...................................................................................................94  
24. WT/DS236 – United States – Preliminar y Determinations with Respect to 
Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada ..............................................................95  
25. WT/DS231 – European Communities – Trade Description of Sardines ............97  
26. WT/DS222 – Canada – Export Credits and Loan Guarantees for 
Regional Aircraft.....................................................................................................98  
27. WT/DS221 – United States – Section 129(c)(1) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act........................................................................................................99
 
28. WT/DS219 – European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Malleable Cast Iron Tube or Pipe Fittings from Brazil.....................................100
 
29. WT/DS217, WT/DS234 – United States – Continued Dumping and 
Subsidy Offset Act of 2000....................................................................................101  
30. WT/DS213 – United States – Countervailing Duties on Certain 
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Germany.....................103  
31. WT/DS212 – United States – Countervailing Measures Concerning 
Certain Products from th e European Communities ..........................................105  
32. WT/DS211 – Egypt – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Steel Rebar 
from Turkey...........................................................................................................106  
33. WT/DS207 – Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard Measures 
Relating to Certain Agricultural Products..........................................................109  
34. WT/DS206 – United States – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing 
Measures on Steel Pl ate from India .....................................................................111  
35. WT/DS204 – Mexico – Measures Affecting Telecommunications Services .....112  
36. WT/DS202 – United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures On Imports 
Of Circular Welded Carbon Quality Line Pipe From Korea ...........................114  
37. WT/DS194 – United States – Measures Treating Export Restraints as 
Subsidies.................................................................................................................116  WT/DS/OV/25 
Page xii  
 
 38.
 WT/DS192 – United States – Transitional Safeguard Measure on 
Combed Cotton Yarn from Pakistan...................................................................117  
39. WT/DS189 – Argentina – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Carton-Board Imports from Germany and De finitive Anti-Dumping Measures 
on Imports of Ceramic Tiles from Italy ..............................................................118
 
40. WT/DS184 – United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Products from Japan........................................................................119
 
41. WT/DS179 – United States – Anti-Dumping measures on Stainless Steel Plate in Coils and Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from Korea..........................121
 
42. WT/DS177, WT/DS178 – United States – Safeguard Measure on Imports 
of Fresh, Chilled or Frozen Lamb from New Zealand.......................................122  
43. WT/DS176 – United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 
1998.........................................................................................................................12 4 
44. WT/DS174, WT/DS290 – European Communities – Protection of 
Trademarks and Geographical Indica tions for Agricultural Products 
and Foodstuffs........................................................................................................125  
45. WT/DS170 – Canada – Term of Patent Protection ............................................127  
46. WT/DS166 – United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports 
of Wheat Gluten from the European Communities ...........................................127  
47. WT/DS165 – United States – Import Measures on Certain Products from the European Communities..................................................................................130
 
48. WT/DS163 – Korea – Measures Affecting Government Procurement.............131  
49. WT/DS162 – United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 ..................................132  
50. WT/DS161, WT/DS169 – Korea – Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled and Frozen Beef........................................................................................133
 
51. WT/DS160 – United States – Section 110(5) of US Copyright Act....................134  
52. WT/DS156 – Guatemala – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measure on Grey Portland Cement from Mexico.............................................................................135
 
53. WT/DS155 – Argentina – Measures Affecting the Export of Bovine Hides and the Import of Finished Leather.....................................................................137
 
54. WT/DS152 – United States – Sections 301 – 310 of the Trade Act 1974...........137  
55. WT/DS146, WT/DS175 – India – Measures Affecting the Automotive 
Sector ......................................................................................................................138  
56. WT/DS141 – European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports 
of Cotton-type Bed Linen from India ..................................................................140  
57. WT/DS139, WT/DS142 – Canada – Certain Measures Affecting the Automotive Industry .............................................................................................142
 
58. WT/DS138 – United States – Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products Originating in the United Kingdom.....................................................................143
 
59. WT/DS136 – United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 ..................................144  
60. WT/DS135 – European Communities – Measures Affecting Asbestos and Products Containing Asbestos..............................................................................144
 
61. WT/DS132 – Mexico – Anti-Dumping Investigation of High-Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) from  the United States.......................................................146
 
62. WT/DS126 – Australia – Subsidies Provided to Producers and Exporters 
of Automotive Leather ..........................................................................................146  
63. WT/DS122 – Thailand – Anti-Dumping Duties on Angles, Shapes and 
Sections of Iron or Non-Alloy Steel and H-Beams from Poland .......................147  
64. WT/DS121 – Argentina – Safeguard Me asures on Imports of Footwear.........148  
65. WT/DS114 – Canada – Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products...........149   WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page xiii 
 
 
 66. WT/DS108 – United States – Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales 
Corporations"........................................................................................................150  
67. WT/DS103, WT/DS113 – Canada – Me asures Affecting the Importation 
of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products..................................................151  
68. WT/DS99 – United States – Anti-Dumping Duty on Dynamic Random 
Access Memory Semiconductors (DRAMS) of One Megabit or Above 
from Korea.............................................................................................................151  
69. WT/DS98 – Korea – Definitive Safegu ard Measure on Imports of Certain 
Dairy Products.......................................................................................................152  
70. WT/DS90 – India – Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of Agricultural, 
Textile and Industrial Products ...........................................................................152  
71. WT/DS87, WT/DS110 – Chile – Tax es on Alcoholic Beverages........................153  
72. WT/DS79 – India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and 
Agricultural Chemical Products ..........................................................................154  
73. WT/DS76 – Japan – Measures Affecting Agricultural Products ......................154  
74. WT/DS75, WT/DS84 – Korea – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages ........................154  
75. WT/DS70 – Canada – Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft.....155  
76. WT/DS69 – European Communities – Measures Affecting Importation of Certain Poultry Products......................................................................................155
 
77. WT/DS62, WT/DS67, WT/DS68 – European Communities – Customs Classification of Certain Computer Equipment.................................................156
 
78. WT/DS60 – Guatemala – Anti-Dumping Investigation Regarding Portland Cement from Mexico.............................................................................157
 
79. WT/DS58 – United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products....................................................................................................157
 
80. WT/DS56 – Argentina – Measures Affecting Imports of Footwear, 
Textiles, Apparel a nd Other Items.......................................................................158  
81. WT/DS54, WT/DS55, WT/DS59, WT/DS64 – Indonesia – Certain 
Measures Affecting the Au tomobile Industry.....................................................158  
82. WT/DS50 – India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and 
Agricultural Chemical Products ..........................................................................159  
83. WT/DS48 – European Communities – Measures Affecting Livestock and 
Meat (Hormones)...................................................................................................160  
84. WT/DS46 – Brazil – Export Financ ing Programme for Aircraft .....................160  
85. WT/DS44 – Japan – Measures Affect ing Consumer Photographic Film 
and Paper ...............................................................................................................161  
86. WT/DS34 – Turkey – Restrictions on Imports of Textile and Clothing 
Products..................................................................................................................161  
87. WT/DS33 – United States – Measures  Affecting Imports of Woven Wool 
Shirts and Blouses .................................................................................................162  
88. WT/DS31 – Canada – Certain Measures Concerning Periodicals....................162  
89. WT/DS27 – European Communities – Re gime for the Importation, Sale 
and Distribution of Bananas.................................................................................163  
90. WT/DS26 – European Communities – Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones) ..................................................................................163
 
91. WT/DS24 – United States – Restrict ions on Imports of Cotton and Man-
made Fibre Underwear .........................................................................................164  
92. WT/DS22 – Brazil – Measures Affecting Desiccated Coconut ..........................164  
93. WT/DS18 – Australia – Measures Affecting the Importation of Salmon.........165  
94. WT/DS8, WT/DS10, WT/DS11 – Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages........165  
95. WT/DS2, WT/DS4 – United States – Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline ..........................................................................................166
 WT/DS/OV/25 
Page xiv  
 
 B.
 APPELLATE BODY AND PANEL COMPLIANCE REPORTS (ARTICLE 21.5)  ADOPTED .......166  
1. WT/DS245 – Japan – Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples .............166  
2. WT/DS212 – United States – Countervailing Measures Concerning 
Certain Products from th e European Communities ..........................................167  
3. WT/DS141 – European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports 
of Cotton-type Bed Linen from India ..................................................................168  
4. WT/DS132 – Mexico – Anti-Dumping Investigation of High-Fructose 
Corn Syrup (HFCS) from  the United States.......................................................169  
5. WT/DS126 – Australia – Subsidies Provided to Producers and Exporters 
of Automotive Leather ..........................................................................................170  
6. WT/DS108 – United States – Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations"........................................................................................................170
 
7. WT/DS103/RW, WT/DS113/RW – Canada – Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products............................171
 
8. WT/DS103/RW/2, WT/DS113/RW/2 – Canada – Measures Affecting the 
Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products............................171  
9. WT/DS99 – United States – Anti-Dumping Duty on Dynamic Random 
Access Memory Semiconductors (DRAMS) of One Megabit or Above from Korea.............................................................................................................172
 
10. WT/DS70 – Canada – Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft.....173  
11. WT/DS58 – United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and 
Shrimp Products....................................................................................................173  
12. WT/DS46 – Brazil – Export Financ ing Programme for Aircraft .....................174  
13. WT/DS27 – European Communities – Re gime for the Importation, Sale 
and Distribution of Bananas.................................................................................175  
14. WT/DS18 – Australia – Measures Affecting the Importation of Salmon.........175  
VI. IMPLEMENTATION STATUS OF ADOPTED REPORTS...........................................176  
1. WT/DS302 – Dominican Republic – Measures Affecting the Importation and Internal Sale of Cigarettes.............................................................................176
 
2. WT/DS301 – European Communities – Measures Affecting Trade in Commercial Vessels...............................................................................................177
 
3. WT/DS299 – European Communities – Countervailing Measures on 
Dynamic Random Access Memory Chips from Korea ......................................177  
4. WT/DS296 – United States – Countervailing Duty Investigation on 
Dynamic Random Access  Memory Semiconductors (DRAMs) from 
Korea ......................................................................................................................177  
5. WT/DS285 – United States – Measu res Affecting the Cross-Border 
Supply of Gambling and Betting Services...........................................................177  
6. WT/DS277 – United States – Investigation of the International Trade 
Commission in Softwood Lumber from Canada................................................177  
7. WT/DS276 – Canada – Measures Rela ting to Exports of Wheat and 
Treatment of Imported Grain ..............................................................................178  
8. WT/DS273 – Korea – Measures Affecting Trade in Commercial Vessels .......179  
9. WT/DS269, WT/DS286 – European Communities – Customs Classification of Frozen Boneless Chicken Cuts.................................................179
 
10. WT/DS268 – United States – Sunset Reviews of Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country Tubular G oods from Argentina ................................................179
 
11. WT/DS267 – United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton................................179  
12. WT/DS265, WT/DS266, WT/DS283 – European Communities – Export 
Subsidies on Sugar.................................................................................................180   WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page xv 
 
 
 13. WT/DS264 – United States – Final Dumping Determination on Softwood 
Lumber from Canada ...........................................................................................180  
14. WT/DS257 – United States – Final Countervailing Duty Determination with respect to certain Softwood Lumber from Canada ...................................181
 
15. WT/DS248, WT/DS249, WT/DS251, WT/DS252, WT/DS253, WT/DS254, 
WT/DS258, WT/DS259 – United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures 
on Imports of Certain Steel Products ..................................................................183  
16. WT/DS246 – European Communities – Conditions for the Granting of Tariff Preferences to Developing Countries........................................................183
 
17. WT/DS238 – Argentina – Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of 
Preserved Peaches .................................................................................................183  
18. WT/DS236 – United States – Preliminar y Determinations with Respect to 
Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada ............................................................183  
19. WT/DS231 – European Communities – Trade Description of Sardines ..........184  
20. WT/DS222 – Canada – Export Credits and Loan Guarantees for 
Regional Aircraft...................................................................................................184  
21. WT/DS219 – European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on 
Malleable Cast Iron Tube or Pipe Fittings from Brazil.....................................185  
22. WT/DS217, WT/DS234 – United States – Continued Dumping and 
Subsidy Offset Act of 2000....................................................................................185  
23. WT/DS213 – United States – Countervailing Duties on Certain 
Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Germany.....................187  
24. WT/DS212 – United States – Countervailing Measures Concerning 
Certain Products from th e European Communities ..........................................187  
25. WT/DS211 – Egypt – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Steel Rebar 
from Turkey...........................................................................................................188  
26. WT/DS207 – Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard Measures Relating to Certain Agricultural Products..........................................................188
 
27. WT/DS206 – United States – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Measures on Steel Pl ate from India .....................................................................189
 
28. WT/DS204 – Mexico – Measures Affecting Telecommunications Services .....190  
29. WT/DS202 – United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures On Imports 
Of Circular Welded Carbon Quality Line Pipe From Korea ...........................190  
30. WT/DS192 – United States – Transitional Safeguard Measure on 
Combed Cotton Yarn from Pakistan...................................................................190  
31. WT/DS189 – Argentina – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Carton-Board Imports from Germany and De finitive Anti-Dumping Measures 
on Imports of Ceramic Tiles from Italy ..............................................................190
 
32. WT/DS184 – United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-
Rolled Steel Products from Japan........................................................................191  
33. WT/DS179 – United States – Anti-Dumping measures on Stainless Steel Plate in Coils and Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from Korea..........................193
 
34. WT/DS177, WT/DS178 – United States – Safeguard Measure on Imports 
of Fresh, Chilled or Frozen Lamb from New Zealand.......................................193  
35. WT/DS176 – United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 
1998.........................................................................................................................19 3 
36. WT/DS174, WT/DS290 – European Communities – Protection of 
Trademarks and Geographical Indica tions for Agricultural Products 
and Foodstuffs........................................................................................................195  
37. WT/DS170 – Canada – Term of Patent Protection ............................................195  
38. WT/DS166 – United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports 
of Wheat Gluten from the European Communities ...........................................196  WT/DS/OV/25 
Page xvi  
 
 39.
 WT/DS161, WT/DS169 – Korea – Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, 
Chilled and Frozen Beef........................................................................................196  
40. WT/DS160 – United States – Section 110(5) of US Copyright Act....................196  
41. WT/DS156 – Guatemala – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measure on Grey Portland Cement from Mexico.............................................................................198
 
42. WT/DS155 – Argentina – Measures Affecting the Export of Bovine Hides and the Import of Finished Leather.....................................................................198
 
43. WT/DS146, WT/DS175 – India – Measures Affecting the Automotive Sector ......................................................................................................................198
 
44. WT/DS141 – European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports 
of Cotton-type Bed Linen from India ..................................................................198  
45. WT/DS139, WT/DS142 – Canada – Certain Measures Affecting the 
Automotive Industry .............................................................................................199  
46. WT/DS138 – United States – Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products 
Originating in the United Kingdom.....................................................................199
 
47. WT/DS136, WT/DS162 – United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916..............200  
48. WT/DS132 – Mexico – Anti-Dumping Investigation of High-Fructose 
Corn Syrup (HFCS) from  the United States.......................................................202  
49. WT/DS126 – Australia – Subsidies Provided to Producers and Exporters 
of Automotive Leather ..........................................................................................202  
50. WT/DS121 – Argentina – Safeguard Me asures on Imports of Footwear.........203  
51. WT/DS114 – Canada – Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products...........203  
52. WT/DS108 – United States – Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales 
Corporations"........................................................................................................203  
53. WT/DS103, WT/DS113 – Canada – Me asures Affecting the Importation 
of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products..................................................205  
54. WT/DS99 – United States – Anti-Dumping Duty on Dynamic Random 
Access Memory Semiconductors (DRAMS) of One Megabit or Above from Korea.............................................................................................................206
 
55. WT/DS98 – Korea – Definitive Safegu ard Measure on Imports of Certain 
Dairy Products.......................................................................................................207  
56. WT/DS90 – India – Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and Industrial Products ...........................................................................207
 
57. WT/DS87, WT/DS110 – Chile – Tax es on Alcoholic Beverages........................207  
58. WT/DS79 – India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and 
Agricultural Chemical Products ..........................................................................208  
59. WT/DS76 – Japan – Measures Affecting Agricultural Products ......................208  
60. WT/DS75, WT/DS84 – Korea – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages ........................208  
61. WT/DS70 – Canada – Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft.....209  
62. WT/DS69 – European Communities – Measures Affecting Importation of Certain Poultry Products......................................................................................209
 
63. WT/DS58 – United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and 
Shrimp Products....................................................................................................209  
64. WT/DS56 – Argentina – Measures Affecting Imports of Footwear, 
Textiles, Apparel a nd Other Items.......................................................................210  
65. WT/DS54, WT/DS55, WT/DS59, WT/DS64 – Indonesia – Certain 
Measures Affecting the Au tomobile Industry.....................................................210  
66. WT/DS50 – India – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and 
Agricultural Chemical Products ..........................................................................210  
67. WT/DS46 – Brazil – Export Financ ing Programme for Aircraft .....................211   WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page xvii 
 
 
 68. WT/DS34 – Turkey – Restrictions on Imports of Textile and Clothing 
Products..................................................................................................................212  
69. WT/DS33 – United States – Measures  Affecting Imports of Woven Wool 
Shirts and Blouses .................................................................................................212  
70. WT/DS31 – Canada – Certain Measures Concerning Periodicals....................212  
71. WT/DS27 – European Communities – Re gime for the Importation, Sale 
and Distribution of Bananas.................................................................................213  
72. WT/DS26, WT/DS48 – European Communities – Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones) .................................................................217
 
73. WT/DS24 – United States – Restrict ions on Imports of Cotton and Man-
made Fibre Underwear .........................................................................................218  
74. WT/DS18 – Australia – Measures Affecting the Importation of Salmon.........218  
75. WT/DS8, WT/DS10, WT/DS11 – Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages........219  
76. WT/DS2, WT/DS4 – United States – Standards for Reformulated and 
Conventional Gasoline ..........................................................................................219  
VII. SETTLED OR INACTIVE CASES ....................................................................................219  
A. MUTUALLY AGREED SOLUTIONS NOTIFIED UNDER ARTICLE 3.6 OF THE DSU ............219  
1. WT/DS329 – Panama – Tariff Classification of Certain Milk Products ..........219  
2. WT/DS313 – European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Certain Flat Rolled Iron or Non-Alloy St eel Products from India .................................220
 
3. WT/DS309 – China – Value-Added Tax on Integrated Circuits.......................220  
4. WT/DS305 – Egypt – Measures Affecting Imports of Textile and Apparel 
Products..................................................................................................................221  
5. WT/DS261 – Uruguay – Tax Treatment on Certain Products..........................222  
6. WT/DS250 – United States – Equalizing Excise Tax Imposed by Florida on Processed Orange and Grapefruit Products..................................................222
 
7. WT/DS245 – Japan – Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples .............223  
8. WT/DS237 – Turkey – Certain Import Procedures for Fresh Fruit ................224  
9. WT/DS235 – Slovakia – Safeguard Measure on Imports of Sugar...................224  
10. WT/DS231 – European Communities – Trade Description of Sardines ..........225  
11. WT/DS210 – Belgium – Administration of Measures Establishing Customs Duties for Rice........................................................................................225
 
12. WT/DS199 – Brazil – Measures Affecting Patent Protection............................226  
13. WT/DS198 – Romania – Measures on Minimum Import Prices ......................226  
14. WT/DS196 – Argentina – Certain Measures on the Protection of Patents and Test Data.........................................................................................................227
 
15. WT/DS190 – Argentina – Transitional Safeguard Measures on Certain 
Imports of Woven Fabric Products of Cotton and Cotton Mixtures 
Originating in Brazil .............................................................................................227  
16. WT/DS171 – Argentina – Patent Protection for Pharmaceuticals and Test Data Protection for Agricultural Chemicals...............................................228
 
17. WT/DS151 – United States – Measures Affecting Textiles and Apparel Products (ll)............................................................................................................229
 
18. WT/DS125 – Greece – Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights for Motion Pictures and Television Programs ..........................................................229
 
19. WT/DS124 – European Communities – Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights for motion pictures and television programs..........................229
 
20. WT/DS119 – Australia – Anti-Dumping Measures on Imports of Coated 
Woodfree Paper Sheets .........................................................................................229  
21. WT/DS115 – European Communities – Measures Affecting the Grant of 
Copyright and Neighbouring Rights ...................................................................229  WT/DS/OV/25 
Page xviii  
 
 22.
 WT/DS103, WT/DS113 – Canada – Me asures Affecting the Importation 
of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products..................................................230  
23. WT/DS102 – Philippines – Measures Affecting Pork and Poultry ...................230  
24. WT/DS99 – United States – Anti-Dumping Duty on Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors (DRAMS) of One Megabit or Above 
from Korea.............................................................................................................230
 
25. WT/DS96 – India – Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of Agricultural, 
Textile and Industrial Goods................................................................................230  
26. WT/DS94 – India – Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and Industrial Products ...........................................................................231
 
27. WT/DS93 – India – Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and Industrial Products ...........................................................................231
 
28. WT/DS92 – India – Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and Industrial Products ...........................................................................231
 
29. WT/DS91 – India – Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of Agricultural, 
Textile and Industrial Products ...........................................................................231  
30. WT/DS86 – Sweden – Measures Affecting the Enforcement of 
Intellectual Property Rights .................................................................................231  
31. WT/DS85 – United States – Measures Affecting Textiles and Apparel Products..................................................................................................................231
 
32. WT/DS83 – Denmark – Measures Affecting the Enforcement of 
Intellectual Property Rights .................................................................................232  
33. WT/DS82 – Ireland – Measures Affecting the Grant of Copyright and 
Neighbouring Rights .............................................................................................232  
34. WT/DS74 – Philippines – Measures Affecting Pork and Poultry .....................232  
35. WT/DS73 – Japan – Procurement of a Navigation Satellite..............................232  
36. WT/DS72 – European Communities – Measures Affecting Butter 
Products..................................................................................................................232  
37. WT/DS43 – Turkey – Taxation of Foreign Film Revenues ...............................233  
38. WT/DS42 – Japan – Measures Concerning Sound Recordings ........................233  
39. WT/DS40 – Korea – Laws, Regulations and Practices in the Telecommunications Pr ocurement Sector...........................................................233
 
40. WT/DS37 – Portugal – Patent Protection under the Industrial Property 
Act...........................................................................................................................2 33 
41. WT/DS36 – Pakistan – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and 
Agricultural Chemical Products ..........................................................................233  
42. WT/DS35 – Hungary – Export Subsidies in Respect of Agricultural 
Products..................................................................................................................234  
43. WT/DS28 – Japan – Measures Concerning Sound Recordings ........................234  
44. WT/DS21 – Australia – Measures Affecting the Importation of 
Salmonids ...............................................................................................................234  
45. WT/DS20 – Korea – Measures Concerning Bottled Water...............................234  
46. WT/DS19 – Poland – Import Regime for Automobiles......................................235  
47. WT/DS7, WT/DS12, WT/DS14 – European Communities – Trade Description of Scallops..........................................................................................235
 
48. WT/DS6 – United States – Imposition of Import Duties on Automobiles from Japan under Sections 301 and 3 04 of the Trade Act of 1974 ...................235
 
49. WT/DS5 – Korea – Measures Concerning the Shelf-Life of Products .............235  
B. OTHERS ............................................................................................................................235  
1. WT/DS328 – European Communities – Definitive Safeguard Measure on 
Salmon ....................................................................................................................235   WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page xix 
 
 
 2. WT/DS326 – European Communities – Definitive Safeguard Measure on 
Salmon ....................................................................................................................237  
3. WT/DS298 – Mexico – Certain Pricing for Customs Valuation and Other Purposes .................................................................................................................238
 
4. WT/DS284 – Mexico – Certain Measures Preventing the Importation of 
Black Beans from Nicaragua................................................................................238  
5. WT/DS255 – Peru – Tax Treatment on Certain Imported Products ...............239  
6. WT/DS240 – Romania – Import Prohibition on Wheat and Wheat Flour ......240  
7. WT/DS232 – Mexico – Measures Affecting the Import of Matches .................240  
8. WT/DS228 – Chile – Safeguard Measures on Sugar..........................................241  
9. WT/DS227 – Peru – Taxes on Cigarettes ............................................................241  
10. WT/DS193 – Chile – Measures affecting the Transit and Importing of 
Swordfish................................................................................................................241  
11. WT/DS181 – Colombia – Safeguard Measure of Imports of Plain Polyester Filaments from Thailand .....................................................................242
 
12. WT/DS106 – Australia – Subsidies Provided to Producers and Exporters of Automotive Leather ..........................................................................................242
 
13. WT/DS101 – Mexico- Anti-Dumping Investigation of High-Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) from  the United States.......................................................242
 
14. WT/DS95 – United States – Measure Affecting Government 
Procurement...........................................................................................................243  
15. WT/DS89 – United States – Imposition of Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Colour Televisi on Receivers from Korea .........................................243
 
16. WT/DS88 – United States – Measure Affecting Government 
Procurement...........................................................................................................243  
17. WT/DS77 – Argentina – Measures Affecting Textiles and Clothing ................243  
18. WT/DS57 – Australia – Textile Clothing and Footwear Import Credit Scheme....................................................................................................................244
 
19. WT/DS49 – United States – Anti-Dumping Investigation Regarding Imports of Fresh or Chilled Tomatoes from Mexico..........................................244
 
20. WT/DS39 – United States – Tariff Increases on Products from the European Communities ........................................................................................244
 
21. WT/DS38 – United States – The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act .........................................................................................................244
 
22. WT/DS32 – United States – Measures Affecting Imports of Women's and Girls' Wool Coats ..................................................................................................245
 
23. WT/DS25 – European Communities – Implementation of the Uruguay 
Round Commitments Concerning Rice...............................................................245  
24. WT/DS23 – Venezuela – Anti-Dumping Investigation in Respect of 
Imports of Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods (OCTG).................................245  
25. WT/DS17 – European Communities – Duties on Imports of Rice....................245  
26. WT/DS15 – Japan – Measures Affecting the Purchase of Telecommunication s Equipment..........................................................................245
 
27. WT/DS13 – European Communities – Duties on Imports of Grains................245  
28. WT/DS9 – European Communities – Duties on Imports of Cereals.................246  
29. WT/DS1 – Malaysia – Prohibition of Imports of Polyethylene and 
Polypropylene ........................................................................................................246  
 
  WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page 1 
 
 
 I. CONSULTATIONS REQUESTED – NO PANEL ESTABLISHED NOR 
SETTLEMENT NOTIFIED 
A. YEAR  2005 
1. WT/DS335 – United States – Anti-Dumping Measure on Shrimp from Ecuador 
Complaint by Ecuador.  On 17 November 2005, Ec uador requested consultations with the United 
States concerning the final affirmative determination of sales at less than fair value with respect to 
certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Ecuador published by the United States Department of 
Commerce (DOC) on 23 December 2004, the amended fi nal determination of sales at less than fair 
value on 1 February 2005 and the accompanying anti-dumping duty order.  According to Ecuador, it 
has concerns particularly about the DOC's practic e of "zeroing" negative anti-dumping margins, based 
on which the DOC issued the forego ing determinations and order.  Ecuador considers that the 
foregoing determinations and order are inconsistent with Article VI  of the GATT 1994 and Articles 1, 
2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.4.2, 5.8, 6.10, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, and 18.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement .   
On 28 November 2005, India requested to be joined in the consultations.  On 1 December 2005, 
Thailand requested to be join ed in the consultations.  
2. WT/DS334 – Turkey – Measures Affecting the Importation of Rice 
Complaint by the United States. On 2 November 2005,  the United States requested consultations with 
Turkey concerning the latter's import restrictions on rice from the United States.  According to the 
request, Turkey requires an import license to import rice  but fails to grant such licenses to import rice 
at Turkey's bound rate of duty.  According to the request, Turkey also operates a tariff-rate quota for 
rice imports requiring that, in order to import specified quantities of rice at reduced tariff levels, 
importers must purchase specified quantities of dom estic rice, including from the Turkish Grain 
Board (TMO), Turkish producers, or producer associations ("the domestic purchase requirement").  
The request lists more than ten measures through  which Turkey has allegedly maintained the 
foregoing restrictions on rice imports, including  Decree No. 96/7794 related to the General 
Assessment of the Regime Regarding Technical Re gulations and Standardi zation for Foreign Trade 
(Official Gazette, No. 22541, 1 February 1996, Repeated).   
The United States considers that the foregoing measures are inconsistent with the following 
provisions:  
• Article 2.1 and paragraph 1(a) of  Annex 1 of the TRIMs Agreement; 
• Articles III (including paragraphs 4, 5,  and 7) and XI:1 of the GATT 1994;  
• Article 4.2 of the Agriculture Agreement; and  
• Articles 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6,  3.2, 3.3, 3.5(a), 3.5(b), 3.5(d) , 3.5(e), 3.5(f), 3.5(g), 3.5(h), 
3.5(k), 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4 of the Import Licensing Agreement. 
On 16 November 2005, Australia and Thailand requested to join the consultations.  WT/DS/OV/25 
Page 2  
 
 3. WT/DS333 – Dominican Republic – Foreign Exchange Fee Affecting Imports from 
Costa Rica 
Complaint by Costa Rica. On 12 September 2005, Costa Rica requested consultations with the 
Dominican Republic concerning the collection by the Dominican Republic of an exchange rate fee of 
13% calculated upon the exchange rate for foreign currency sale which applies to imports from Costa 
Rica. The request refers to some decisions of th e Currency Board of the Central Bank of Dominican 
Republic (24 January 1991, 20 August 2002, 22 October 2003 and 23 December 2004) as well as to 
any further amendments or related decisions. 
Costa Rica considers that the said exchange rate fe e is a "charge ... imposed on or in connection with 
the importation" as provided for in Article II.1(b) of the GATT 1994, and, thus claims that it is 
inconsistent with this provision, among others.  
On 28 September 2005, Guatemala requested to join the consultations. On 29 September 2005, El 
Salvador requested to join the consultations. On 7 October 2005, the Dominican Republic accepted 
both requests to join the consultations. 
4. WT/DS332 – Brazil – Measures Affecting Imports of Retreaded Tyres 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 20 June 2005, the European Communities requested 
consultations with Brazil on the imposition of measur es that adversely affect exports of retreaded 
tyres from the EC to the Brazilian market. The EC would like to address the following measures:  
• Brazil's imposition of an import ban on retreaded tyres; 
• Brazil's adoption of a set of measures banning the importation of used tyres, which are 
sometimes applies against imports of retreaded ty res, despite the fact that these are not used 
tyres; 
• Brazil's imposition of a fine of 400 BRL per un it on the importation, as well as the marketing, 
transportation, storage, keeping or keeping in  deposit or warehouses of imported, but not of 
domestic retreaded tyres; and  
• Brazil's exemption of retreaded tyres importe d from other Mercosur countries from the import 
ban and from the above-mentioned fi nancial penalites, in response to the ruling of a Mercosur 
panel established at the request of Uruguay. 
The EC considers that the foregoing measures are in consistent with Brazil's obligations under Articles 
I:1, III:4, XI:1 and XIII:1 of the GATT 1994.  
On 4 July 2005, Argentina requested to join the consultations. On 20 July 2005, Brazil accepted 
Argentina's request to join the consultations. 
On 17 November 2005, the European Communities requ ested the establishment of a panel.  At its 
meeting on 28 November 2005, the DSB deferred th e establishment of a panel until a second request 
is made by the European Communities.  WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page 3 
 
 
 5. WT/DS331 – Mexico – Anti-Dumping Duties on Steel Pipes and Tubes from Guatemala 
Complaint by Guatemala. On 17 June 2005, Gu atemala requested consultations with Mexico 
concerning the definitive anti-dumping duties imposed by Mexico against imports of steel pipes and tubes from Guatemala and the investigation leading thereto. 
According to Guatemala, the anti-dumping duties con cerned and the investigation leading thereto are 
inconsistent with Mexico's obligations under, inter alia, 
• Article VI of the GATT 1994;  and 
• Articles 1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.6, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 4.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.8, 5.10, 6.2, 6.4, 
6.5, 6.7, 6.8, 6.9, 6.13, 9.1, 9.3, 12.1, 12.2, 18.1 and Annex II of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. 
6. WT/DS330 – Argentina – Countervailing Duties on Olive Oil, Wheat Gluten and 
Peaches 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 29 April 2005, the European Communities requested 
consultations with Argentina rega rding countervailing duties imposed on imports of olive oil, wheat 
gluten and canned peaches originating in the Eu ropean Communities by "Resolución 827/2004" of 31 
December 2004, "Resolución 546/2004" of 20 August 2004 and "Resolución 803/2004" of 17 
December 2004 of the Ministerio de Economía y Producción of Argentina.  
According to the European Commun ities, the inconsistencies include: 
• the failure of the Argentine authorities to proper ly determine the existence of subsidisation, 
and/or the likelihood of continuatio n or recurrence of such subsidisation, inter alia, by failing 
to properly determine the existence of any "pass-through" of any benefit;  
• the failure of the Argentine authorities to properl y determine the existence of material injury 
caused by any such subsidisation, and/or the lik elihood of continuation or recurrence of such 
material injury caused by any such subsidisation; and  
• the failure of the Argentine authorities to prov ide an adequate and reasoned explanation that 
the amount of any alleged subsidy is calculated in an appropriate manner and to carry out an 
assessment of the facts on the record in an objective and unbiased manner. 
The European Communities consider s that the countervailing duties concerned are inconsistent with 
Argentina’s obligations under, inter alia, Artic le VI:3 of the GATT 1994, Articles 1, 10, 11 (in 
particular paragraphs 2, 3, 4, a nd 9), 12, 14, 19 (in particular para graphs 1, 3 and 4) and Article 21 
(paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4) of the SCM Agreement.  
7. WT/DS325 – United States – Anti-Dumping Determinations regarding Stainless Steel 
from Mexico 
Complaint by Mexico. On 5 January 2005, Mexico re quested consultations with the United States 
concerning (i) certain final anti-dumping determina tions made by the United States Department of 
Commerce ("USDOC") in respect of stainless steel sh eet and strip coils from Mexico and (ii) certain 
generally applicable United States anti-dumping la ws, regulations and administrative practices.  WT/DS/OV/25 
Page 4  
 
 In respect of (i), according to Mexico, in each of the four determinations at issue the USDOC applied 
a methodology involving "zeroing" of negative dumpi ng margins. In Mexico's view, this may have 
resulted in the DOC making incorrect determinati ons of dumping margins and unfair comparisons. In 
respect of (ii), the generally applicable US anti-dumping laws, regulations and administrative 
practices which are of concern to Mexico are: Sections 736, 751, 771(35)(A) and (B), and 777A(c) 
and (d) of the US Tariff Act of 1930; and the USDOC  rules codified in Title 19 of United States Code 
of Federal Regulations, sections 351. 212(b), 351.414 c), d) and e). Mexico considers that both (i) and 
(ii) may be inconsistent with the US' obligations un der: Articles 1, 2 (in particular Articles 2.1, 2.4 
and 2.4.2), 5 (in particular Article 5.8), 9 (in particular Article 9.3), 11 (in particular Article 11.2) and 
18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; Articles VI:1  and VI:2 , as well as X:3(a) of the GATT 1994; 
and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.  
On 13 January 2005, Japan requested  to join the consultations. On 19 January 2005, the European 
Communities requested to join the consultations. 
B. YEAR
 2004 
1. WT/DS324 – United States – Provisional Anti-Dumping Measures on Shrimp from 
Thailand 
Complaint by Thailand. On 9 December 2004, Th ailand requested consultations with the United 
States concerning provisional anti-dumping measur es imposed by the US on certain frozen and 
canned warmwater shrimp from Thailand. 
According to the request for consultations from Thai land, the US preliminary determination at issue 
and the consequent imposition of provisional an ti-dumping measures on imports of the foregoing 
products are inconsistent with the WTO obligations of  the United States in respect of the following:  
• US application in the preliminary determina tion of the practice known as "zeroing" negative 
dumping margins;  
• US resort in the preliminary determination to th e use of so-called "adverse facts available" to 
determine normal values for one Thai exporter; and  
• US failure to make due allowances in the pr eliminary determination for differences that 
affected price comparability between export prices and normal values for the Thai exporters, including differences relating to levels of trade and duty drawback payments. 
Thailand considers that these US measures are inconsiste nt with, inter alia, Articles 1, 2.4, 2.4.2, 6.8. 
6.13, 7.1, paragraphs 3, 5, 6, and 7 of Annex II of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, and Article VI of 
GATT 1994.  
On 20 December 2004, Japan and Brazil requested to  join the consultations. On 22 December 2004, 
the European Communities requested  to join the consultations. On December 23 2004, China, India 
and Ecuador requested to join the consultations. 
2. WT/DS319 – United States – Section 776 of the Tariff Act of 1930 
Complaint by the European Communities. On  5 November 2004, the European Communities 
requested consultations with the United States c oncerning Section 776 of the US Tariff Act of 1930, 
as amended, and the determinations  of dumping by the DOC and the DOC notice for the imposition of  WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page 5 
 
 
 the anti-dumping duty of 125.77% with respect to Firth Rixson Special Steels Limited (FRSS) in 
Stainless Steel Bar from the United Kingdom.  
According to the request for consultations from th e EC, the US violates its WTO obligations with 
respect to the following measures:  
• the Tariff Act of 1930, in particular section 776, together with any relevant statements in the 
Statement of Administrative Action that accompanied the adoption of the Uruguay Round 
Agreements Act (the "URAA"); 
• the refusal by DOC to verify the data submitte d by FRSS and the rejection of such data for 
the determination of the margin of dumping of FRSS; 
• the decision by the DOC to employ an "adverse inference" in the selection of facts available 
with respect to FRSS; and  
• the reliance by the DOC on information containe d in the complaint for the establishment of 
the margin of dumping and anti-dumping duty of FRSS. 
The EC considers that these US measures are inconsis tent with, inter alia, Ar ticles 1, 6 (including 
paragraphs 6, 8 and 13), 18.4 and Annex II of th e ADA; Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT; and 
Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.  
3. WT/DS318 – India – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Products from the Separate 
Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu 
Complaint by Chinese Taipei. On 28 October 2004, Chinese Taipei requested consultations with India 
concerning the provisional and definitive anti-dum ping measures imposed by India on the following 
seven products: Acrylic fibres; Analgin; Potassi um permanganate; Paracet amol; Sodium nitrite; 
Caustic soda; and Gr een veneer tape.  
According to the request for consultations from Chin ese Taipei, India violates its WTO obligations in 
a number of ways, including:  
• the rejection of the information provided by e xporters without providing reasons; and the lack 
of satisfaction as to the accuracy and reliabilit y of the information provided by the domestic 
industry;  
• the initiation of the investigations and impos ition of the anti-dumping duties, despite no 
imports of the product concerned from Chinese Taipei into India during the Period of Investigation, and despite the insufficiently substantiated petitions for the initiation on the 
existence of dumping and injury;  
• the lack of correct determination of  the normal value and export price;  
• the determination of injury not based on pos itive evidence or an objective examination and 
without examining all injury factors mentioned by the Anti Dumping Agreement (ADA); and the determination of the threat of material in jury not on facts but on allegation, conjecture or 
remote possibility;  
• the lack of demonstration that the dumped impor ts were causing the a lleged injury; and the 
failure to ensure that alleged injury caused by other factors was not attributed to dumping;  WT/DS/OV/25 
Page 6  
 
 • the lack of providing interested parties with  the full opportunity for the defence of their 
interests; and the lack of informing th e interested parties the essential facts under 
consideration which form the basis for the decision;  
• provisional measures imposed for more than the period of time allowed under the ADA;  
• the notice of initiation of investigations lacking in all the grounds that support dumping and 
injury; and the notice of definitive findings lacki ng in all relevant information of facts and law 
and reasons which led to the imposition of the anti dumping measures. 
Chinese Taipei considers that these I ndian measures are inconsistent with, inter alia: Article VI:1 and 
VI:2 of GATT 1994, and Articles 1, 2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7, 3.8, 4, 5, 6 (including Annex II), 7.4, 12.1 and 12.2 of the ADA.  
4. WT/DS314 – Mexico – Provisional Counter vailing Measures on Olive Oil from the 
European Communities 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 18 August 2004, the European Communities requested 
consultations with Mexico concerning the im position by Mexico of provisional countervailing 
measures on imports of olive oil origin ating in the European Communities.  
According to the request for consultations from th e European Communities, Mexico's initiation of the 
foregoing countervailing duty inves tigation and its subsequent impos ition of provisional measures are 
inconsistent with Mexico’s obliga tions under inter alia Articles 10, 11 (in particular paragraphs 2, 3, 
4, and 9) 15, 16 and 17 (in particular Article 17.1( a) and (b)) of the SCM Agreement, and Article 13 
and/or Article 21.1 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
According to the request from the European Comm unities, the foregoing inconsistencies are claimed 
in such aspects as:  
• the initiation of an investigation in the absence of  sufficient evidence that a domestic industry 
is suffering injury as a result of subsidised imports; 
• the failure to review the accuracy and adequa cy of the evidence in the application to 
determine whether there was sufficient ev idence to initiate an investigation; 
• the failure to establish whether the applicati on was made by or on behalf of the domestic 
industry of the like product; 
• the failure to reject the application and to te rminate promptly the investigation as soon as the 
Mexican authorities should have been satisfied th at there was insufficie nt evidence to initiate 
and/or proceed with the investigation; 
• the imposition of provisional count ervailing measures: despite the failure to correctly define 
the domestic industry; despite the failure to in itiate the investigation in accordance with the 
provisions of the SCM Agreement and the Agreement on Agriculture; despite the non-existence of material injury or material reta rdation; and despite the failure to establish a 
causal link between the allegedly subsidi sed imports and the alleged injury.   WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page 7 
 
 
 5. WT/DS311 – United States – Reviews of Countervailing Duty on Softwood Lumber from 
Canada 
Complaint by Canada. On 14 April 2004, Canada request consultations with the United States 
concerning: (i) the failure of the US Department of Commerce (DOC) to complete expedited reviews 
of the countervailing duty order concerning certain so ftwood lumber products fro m Canada in order to 
promptly establish an individual countervailing duty rate for each requesting exporter; and (ii) the 
refusal and failure of USDOC to conduct compan y-specific administrative reviews of the same 
countervailing duty order in order to establish a fi nal individual countervailing duty rate for each 
requesting exporter. 
Canada claims that the United States has violated its obligations under Artic les 10, 19.1, 19.3, 19.4, 
21.1, 21.2, 21.4 and 32.1 of the SCM Agre ement and Article VI:3 of GATT 1994.  
The final countervailing duty order whose expedited and administrative reviews are at issue in this 
dispute was at issue in WT/DS257.  
6. WT/DS310 – United States – Determination of the International Trade Commission in 
Hard Red Spring Wheat from Canada 
Complaint by Canada. On 8 April 2004, Canada requested consultations with the United States 
concerning: (i) the investigation of the USITC in Hard Red Spring Wheat from Canada, (ii) the 
USITC's final determination that an industry in the US  is materially injured by reason of imports from 
Canada of that product that have been found by th e Department of Commerce to be subsidized by the 
Government of Canada and sold in the US at less than fair value and (iii) the final definitive anti 
dumping and countervailing duties applied as a result of the final determination above. 
Canada claims that, through these measures, the Un ited States has violated its obligations under 
Article VI:6(a) of the GATT 1994, Articles 1, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5 and 18.1 of the Anti Dumping Agreement and Articles 10, 15.1, 15.2, 15.4, 15.5, 19.1 and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement. 
On 10 June 2004, Canada requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 22 June 2004, the 
DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  
7. WT/DS307 – European Communities  – Aid for Commercial Vessels 
Complaint by Korea. On 13 February 2004, Ko rea requested consultations with the European 
Communities concerning certain measures by the EC and its member States in favour of their shipbuilding industry which, according to Korea, are inconsistent with their WTO obligations.  
Korea had already submitted its request for consultations on the same issue, and in view of some of 
the claims contained therein Korea put forth its  request for the establishment of a panel (see 
WT/DS301).  
Korea, through this new request for consultations, in tends to proceed with consultations with the EC 
regarding some measures which were already the subj ect of its previous request along with additional 
measures recently adopted by the EC. The measures listed are, inter alia:  
• EC Regulation 1177/2002 ("TDM Re gulations") (currently proposed to be extended until 31 
March 2005), EC Regulation 1540/98 and the EC  member States' implementing provisions; WT/DS/OV/25 
Page 8  
 
 • The provision by the EC and the member States of subsidies in support of commercial vessels 
built in the EC, in various forms including ope rational aid granted on a contractual basis in 
forms such as grants, export credits, guarantees or tax breaks; 
• The provisions of the Framework on State Aid to Shipbuilding (Document No 2003/C 
317/06) as well as the EC member States' implementing provisions and any individual 
granting of aid, including the decision by Spain in application of the Framework to some of 
its own financing schemes; 
• The extension of financing and guarantees for th e building of commercial vessels subject to a 
minimum domestic content in Finland, Fran ce, Germany, Italy, and The Netherlands; 
• The guarantee by Germany of all obligations of the Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau ("Kfw"); 
• The provision in Germany of public fallback gua rantees with respect to credits granted for the 
financing of ships build in German yards in the five coastal Länder.  
Korea considers that these EC and its member States' measures are in breach of their WTO 
obligations, inter alia, Articles 1, 2, 3.1(a) and (b), 5(a), (b) and (c), 6.3(a), (b) and (c), 6.4 and 6.5 of 
the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measu res ("SCM Agreement"). Korea also considers 
that the above-described measures nullify or impair benefits accruing to Korea under the WTO 
Agreements, within the meaning of Articles XXIII:1(a) and (b) of GATT 1994.  
8. WT/DS306 – India – Anti-Dumping Measure on Batteries from Bangladesh 
Complaint by Bangladesh. This is the first dispute in volving an LDC Member as a principal party to a 
dispute. 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 about 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 co mparison 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 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 info rmation 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".  WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page 9 
 
 
 Bangladesh considers that the foregoing Indian m easure 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 pur suant 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.  
C. YEAR
 2003 
1. WT/DS304 – India – Anti-Dumping Measures on  Imports of Certain Products from the 
European Communities 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 8 Decem ber 2003, the EC requested consultations with 
India concerning certain antidumping measures on imports  of 27 products originating in the EC or EC 
member States. 
According to the request for consultations from the EC, India violates its WTO obligations, inter alia, 
in that:  
• the determination of the effect of the dumped imports on prices does not seem to be based on 
positive evidence and on an objective examination;  
• the Indian investigating authority did not dem onstrate that dumped im ports were causing the 
alleged injury, and failed to examine other know n factors and ensure that injury caused by 
those other factors was not attributed to dumping;  
• the Indian investigating authority did not proper ly inform interested parties of the relevant 
essential facts under consideration which formed the basis for the decision to apply the anti-
dumping measures and in sufficient time for those parties to defend their interests;  
• the Indian investigating authority did not prope rly inform interested parties of the reasons 
why it did not accept evidence or information th ey had submitted within the investigation 
procedure;  
• the Indian investigating authority did not satisfy  itself during the course of the investigation as 
to the accuracy of the information supplied by interested parties in particular by their 
domestic industry;  
• the public notice of information concluding th e investigation did not contain all relevant 
information on the matters of fact and law and reasons which led to th e imposition of the anti-
dumping measures.  
The EC considers that these Indian measures are inconsistent with: Article VI:1 of GATT 1994; 
Articles 1, 3.1, 3.2, 3.5, 6.6, 6.8 (including Annex II), 6.9 and 12.2 of the Anti Dumping Agreement. 
On 19 December 2003, Turkey and Chinese Taip ei requested to join the consultations. 
On 22 January 2004, India accepted both requests.  WT/DS/OV/25 
Page 10  
 
 2. WT/DS303 – Ecuador – Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Medium Density 
Fibreboard 
Complaint by Chile. On 24 November 2003, Chile requ ested consultations with Ecuador in respect of 
a definitive safeguard measure applied by Ecuador  on imports of medium density fibreboard. 
Chile alleges that there were no "unforeseen developm ents", no increase in imports and no threat of 
serious injury. Chile alleges that the Ecuadorian au thorities' investigation was flawed because it did 
not analyze all product sub-categories covered by th e measure, and that their report was inadequate 
because it did not contain an adequate and reasone d explanation of all relevant factors having a 
bearing on the situation of the domestic industry, di d not demonstrate a causal  relationship between a 
supposed increase in imports and a supposed threat of  serious injury, did not respect the principle of 
non-attribution of injury caused by other factors, di d not determine the extent of application of the 
measure necessary to prevent serious injury and to facilitate adjustment and did not explain whether 
imports from countries excluded from the applicati on of the measure were also excluded from the 
investigation.  
Chile also alleges that Ecuador did not explain th e method by which it will administer and allot quota 
shares among supplying countries, did not specify the critical circumstances which justified 
imposition of the prior provisional measure and w as late in notifying the measure to the WTO.  
Chile considers that the measure is inconsistent w ith substantive and procedural obligations in inter 
alia Article XIX:1(a) of GATT 1994 and Articles 2.1,  3.1, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 12 of the Agreement on 
Safeguards.  
3. WT/DS300 – Dominican Republic – Measures Affecting the Importation of Cigarettes 
Complaint by Honduras. On 28 August 2003, Hondur as requested consultations  with the Dominican 
Republic concerning its measures which affect the importation of cigarettes. 
Honduras' request concerns three types of measures:  
• The manner in which the tax base is assessed fo r purposes of collection of the Selective Tax 
on Consumption regarding cigarettes, which in Honduras' view creates a less favourable 
treatment for Honduran cigarettes than that r eceived by like domestic products and by like 
products imported from third countries. This is  inconsistent with the Dominican Republic's 
obligations under Articles III:2 and I:1 of GATT 1994;  
• The requirement that stamps must be affixed on the product inside the territory of the 
Dominican Republic and under supe rvision of its tax authorities, which in Honduras' view 
creates a less favourable treatment for Honduran cigarettes than that received by like domestic 
products. This is also inconsistent with th e Dominican Republic's obligations under Article 
III:4 of GATT 1994; and,  
• The requirement that importers, including im porters of cigarettes, post a bond as a pre-
requisite for importation, which in Honduras' vi ew creates a "charge" other than a custom 
duty, and is therefore inconsistent with th e Dominican Republic's obligations under Article 
I:1(b) of GATT 1994. In another sense, it is also a "restriction" on the importation of 
cigarettes and therefore inconsistent with th e Dominican Republic's obligations under Article 
XI:1 of GATT 1994.   WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page 11 
 
 
 Honduras claimed that such measures unduly restrict its exports to Dominican Republic and nullify or 
impair benefits accruing to Hondur as under the WTO Agreement.  
4. WT/DS297 – Croatia – Measures Affecting Impo rts of Live Animals and Meat Products 
Complaint by Hungary. On 9 July 2003, Hungary requested consultations with Croatia regarding 
certain measures taken by Croatia affecting imports of live animals and meat products.  
According to Hungary, the import measure was introduced by Croatia on 5 June 2003 without 
notification to the SPS Committee. The measure is a lleged to aim at the prevention of the spread of 
the BSE disease. Apart from ruminants, it applies to all other animals of any economic significance such as live pigs, poultry and fish and products ther eof. The measure prohibits imports unless there is 
a prohibition in the exporting country on feeding an imals with feed containing animal protein (fish 
meal is also not allowed to be used under all circumstances).  
Hungary asserts that the measure in troduced by Croatia is not base d on any scientific principle linked 
to the prevention of the spread of BSE. Hungary c onsiders that there is no scientific basis for applying 
such feeding requirements to anim als other than ruminants. The H ungarian authorities are unaware of 
any case where BSE was proved to be spread through pigs, poultry or fish and meat thereof. Hungary 
notes that it is a BSE-free country. Hungary is also  not aware of any international standard which 
would justify such feeding requirements. The Hungar ian authorities were not informed of any risk 
assessment either conducted by the competent Croatian authorities.  
In Hungary's view, the measure at issue appears to be  inconsistent with Croatia 's obligations under the 
following WTO provisions:  
• Articles XI and XX of the GATT 1994;  
• Articles 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.6, 6.1, 6.2, 7 and Annex B of the SPS Agreement.  
5. WT/DS289 – Czech Republic – Additional Du ty on Imports of Pig-Meat from Poland 
Complaint by Poland. On 14 April 2003, Poland re quested consultations with the Czech Republic 
concerning the additional duty levied by the Czech  Republic on imports of pig meat from Poland. 
According to Poland, the Czech Republic publishe d on 25 March 2003 a Decr ee dated 12 March 2003 
which provides that customs duties levied under tariff heading 0203 11 10 on pig meat imported from 
Poland shall be 50% above the Czec h Republic's tariff binding for that tariff heading, or 23 CZK/kg, 
whichever is higher. Poland also claims that this  measure appears to be subject to a minimum import 
price as the aforementioned duty rate does not a pply to imports with declared customs value 
exceeding 36 CZK/kg. No other sources of imports ha ve been mentioned in the Decree, which, in 
Poland's view, seems to imply that the restrictions  introduced by this action apply exclusively to 
Poland and, as such, are discriminatory in  their purpose, nature and effect.  
Poland claims that this measure appears to be inc onsistent with the obligations of the Czech Republic 
under Article 4 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture  and constitutes a nullification and impairment 
of the rights and benefits, within the meaning of  Article XXIII of GATT 1994, that Poland is entitled 
to enjoy, inter alia, under GATT Articles I and II.  
Poland also claims that the institution and implem entation of the said measure had not been preceded 
by any bilateral notice or consultations, with the D ecree taking effect on the date of its publication.  WT/DS/OV/25 
Page 12  
 
 6. WT/DS288 – South Africa – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Blanketing from 
Turkey 
Complaint by Turkey. On 10 April 2003, Turkey requested consultations with South Africa 
concerning its definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of blanketing in roll form from Turkey. These measures were imposed further to an investig ation by the South African Board on Tariffs and 
Trade (BTT) into the alleged circumvention of an ti-dumping duties on blankets originating in or 
imported from Turkey. 
Turkey claims that: (i) the TBT failed to ensure proper notifications; (ii) the establishment of facts 
was not proper; and (iii) the TBT's evaluation of these facts was not unbiased and objective, 
particularly in relation to the initiation and the conduct of the investigation as well as the imposition 
of the anti-dumping duty.  
Turkey claims that South Africa's measures are in violation of Articles 5.5, 6.1, 6.1.3, 6.2, 6.9, 6.10, 
9.2, 9.3 and Article 12.1 of the Anti-Dumping Ag reement; and Articles III and X of the GATT 1994.  
D. YEAR
 2002 
1. WT/DS279 – India – Import Restrictions Maintained Under the Export and Import 
Policy 2002-2007 
Complaint by the European Communities. On  23 December 2002, the European Communities 
requested consultations with Indi a concerning import restrictions ma intained by India under its Export 
and Import Policy 2002-2007 with respect to partic ular products of concern to the European 
Communities. The European Communities considered that these import restrictions may constitute an 
infringement of, in particular but not necessarily exclusively, the following WTO provisions:  
• Articles III, X and XI of GATT 1994;  
• Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture;  
• Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures;  
• Articles 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8 of the Agreemen t on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures;  
• Article 2 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade.  
According to the EC, the import restrictions at i ssue cannot be justified under Articles XX or XXI of 
GATT 1994.  
On 17 January 2003, the US requested to join th e consultations. On 31 January 2003, India accepted 
the request of the US.  
2. WT/DS278 – Chile – Definitive Safegu ard Measure on Imports of Fructose 
Complaint by Argentina. On 20 December 2002, Argentina requested consultations with Chile 
concerning a definitive safeguard measure on imports of certain kinds of fructose. Chile imposed the 
measure on 19 November 2002 for a period of one year b ackdated to 30 July 2002, at a rate of 14% ad 
valorem.   WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page 13 
 
 
 Argentina alleges that Chile's safeguard meas ure violates Article XIX:1(a) of GATT 1994 and 
Articles 2.1, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1(b), 4.1(c), 4.2(a,) 4.2(b) , 5.1, 7.1 and 7.5 of the Safeguards Agreement, for 
the following reasons:  
• there were no unforeseen developments which justified the measure;  
• the investigation was not based on a like or directly competitive product;  
• there was no determination of an increase in imports;  
• the injury factors did not justify the determination of a threat of serious injury;  
• there was no objective determination of a causal  link between the increase in imports and the 
threat of serious injury;  
• the investigating authorities' report was not published and did not contain findings and 
reasoned conclusions on all pertinent issues of fact and law;  
• the measure is applied beyond the permissible extent; and  
• Chile reapplied the measure before the end of the minimum permitted non-application period.  
3. WT/DS275 – Venezuela – Import Licensing Me asures on Certain Agricultural Products 
Complaint by the United States. On 7 November 2002 the United States requested consultations with 
Venezuela concerning Venezuelan import licensing sy stems and practices that restrict agricultural 
imports from the United States. According to th e United States, Venezuela has established import 
licensing requirements for numerous agricultural pr oducts, including corn, sorghum, dairy products 
(for example, cheese, whey, whole milk powder, and non-fat dry milk), grapes, yellow grease, 
poultry, beef, pork, and soybean meal.  
The United States claimed that Venezuela appears to  have established a discretionary import licensing 
regime for the above products. It further clai med that, through its import licensing practices, 
Venezuela has failed to establish a transparent and predictable system for issuing import licenses and 
has severely restricted and distorted trade in these goods.  
The United States alleges that Venezuela's import licensing systems and practices appear to be 
inconsistent with Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture; Articles III, X, XI, and XIII of GATT 
1994; Article 2.1 of the TRIMs Agreement, and Articles 1.4, 3.2, 3.5, 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 of the Import 
Licensing Agreement. Venezuela's me asures also appear to nullify or impair the benefits accruing to 
the United States directly or indirectly under the cited agreements.  
On 20 November 2002, the EC and Canada requested  to join the consultations. On 21 November 
2002, New Zealand and Chile requested to join th e consultations. On 22 November 2002, Argentina 
and Colombia requested to join the consultati ons. On 25 November 2002, Venezuela informed the 
DSB that it had accepted the requests of Argentina, Canada, Chile, the EC and New Zealand to join 
the consultations.  WT/DS/OV/25 
Page 14  
 
 4. WT/DS274 – United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain Steel 
Products 
Complaint by Chinese Taipei. On 1 November 2002, Ch inese Taipei requested consultations with the 
United States with regard to safeguard measures on steel imposed by the United States on imports of 
certain steel products. These measures are currently been reviewed by a Panel in the joint cases 
WT/DS248, WT/DS249, WT/DS251, WT/DS252, WT/DS253, WT/DS254, WT/DS258, WT/DS259. 
Chinese Taipei is a third party in these proceedings. 
This dispute concerns the definitive safeguard meas ures imposed by the United States in the form of 
an increase in duties on imports of certain flat steel , hot-rolled bar, cold-finished bar, rebar, certain 
tubular products, carbon and alloy f ittings and flanges, stainless steel bar, stainless steel rod, tin mill 
products and stainless steel wire, and in the form of a tariff rate quota on imports of slabs. These 
measures were published in the Pr oclamation 7529, dated 5 March 2002 (Federal Register Vol. 67, 
No 45 of 7 March 2002). Chinese Taipei considers th at these measures are in violation of the United 
States obligations under Articles I:1 and XIX:1(a) of  the GATT 1994 and Articles 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 4.1(c), 
4.2(a), 4.2(b) and 5.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards. 
On 21 November 2002, Japan requested to join the consultations. The United States informed that 
DSB that it accepted the request of Jap an to join the consultations.  
5. WT/DS272 – Peru – Provisional Anti-Dumping Duties on Vegetable Oils from Argentina 
Complaint by Argentina. On 21 October 2002, Arge ntina requested consulta tions with Peru on its 
anti-dumping investigation on imports of sunflower and soja vegetable oils and their mixtures 
originating in Argentina (Resolution No. 016- 2002-CDS-INDECOPI); and its imposition of 
provisional anti-dumping duties on those imports as a result of the said investigation (Resolution No. 
040-2002-CDS-INDECOPI). Argentina considered that both the on-going investigation and the 
provisional determination of the existence of dum ping, injury and causal link which led to the 
imposition of provisional anti-dumping duties, are inc onsistent with Peru's obligations under Articles 
5.2, 5.3, 5.8, 4.1(ii), 6.8 and Annex II, 2.2, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 7, 12.2.1 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement and Article VI of the GATT 1994.  
As regards the measure imposing provisional anti-dump ing duties, Argentina considered that it is also 
inconsistent with Peru's obligations under Articles 5.2,  5.3, 5.8, 6.8 and Annex II, 2.2, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 
3.4, 3.5, 7, 12.2.1 of the Anti Dumping Agreement and Article VI of the GATT 1994.  
6. WT/DS271 – Australia – Certain Measures Affecting the Importation of Fresh 
Pineapple 
Complaint by the Philippines. On 18 October 200 2, the Philippines requested consultations with 
Australia on certain measures affecting the import ation into Australia of fresh pineapple, which 
include, but are not limited to:  
• Section 64 of the Quarantine Proclamation 19 98 promulgated under the Quarantine Act 1908; 
• Regulations, requirements and procedures issued pursuant thereto, including Plant Biosecurity 
Policy Memorandum 2002/45 (requiring that fresh pineapple fruit from The Philippines, the 
Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, and Thailand shall, among other re quirements, be de-crowned 
and subjected to pre-shipment methyl bromid e fumigation as conditions for importation into 
Australia);   WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page 15 
 
 
 • Amendments to any of the foregoing; and  
• Their application.  
The Philippines considered that these measures are in consistent with the obligations of Australia 
under the GATT 1994 and the SPS Agreement. The rele vant provisions of these agreements include, 
but are not limited to Articles XI and XIII of the GA TT 1994, and Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 10 of the 
SPS Agreement.  
In 1 November 2002, the EC and Thailand requested to join the consultations. On 7 November 2002, 
Australia informed the DSB that it had accepted th e requests of the EC and Thailand to join the 
consultations.  
7. WT/DS263 – European Communities – Measures Affecting Imports of Wine 
Complaint by Argentina. On 4 September 2002, Ar gentina requested consultations with the EC 
regarding several EC regulations and other manda tory provisions on oenological practices and on 
trade in wine.  
Argentina's complaint is in respect of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1493/1999 and Commission 
Regulation (EC) No. 883/2001, which relate to the administration and the common organisation of the 
market in wine, the establishment of authorized oenological practices and the regulation of trade 
between the countries of the EU and third countries. 
Argentina considered that these measures are inconsistent with Articles 2 and 12 of the TBT 
Agreement, Articles I:1 and III:4 of GATT 1994 an d Article XVI.4 of the WTO Agreement.  
8. WT/DS262 – United States – Sunset Review s of Anti-Dumping and Countervailing 
Duties on Certain Steel Products from France and Germany 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 25 July 2002 the EC requested consultations with the 
US regarding anti-dumping and countervailing duties imposed by the US, further to sunset review 
proceedings, on imports of (1) corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products ("corrosion resistant steel") from France (A-427-808 and C-427-810) a nd Germany (A 428 815 and C-428-817) and (2) 
cut-to-length carbon steel plate ("cut-to-length steel") from Germany (A-428-816 and C-428-817). 
The EC refers in particular to:  
• the final results of the sunset reviews by the US Department of Commerce (the "DOC") of the 
anti-dumping duty orders on corrosion-resistant st eel from France and from Germany and of 
the countervailing duty order on corro sion-resistant steel from France; 
• the determinations of the US International Trade Commission (the "ITC") on the sunset 
reviews of the anti-dumping and countervailing duties on cut-to-length steel from Germany 
and on corrosion resistant steel from France and Germany; and  
• certain provisions and procedures contained in Sections 751 (c) and 752 of the Tariff Act of 
1930 (the "Act"), in the implementing regulations  and in the Policy Bulletin issued by the 
DOC.  
In its request for consultations, the EC considered that these determinations resulting in the 
continuation of the duties are erroneous and based  on deficient rulings, procedures and provisions 
pertaining to the Act and related re gulations. The EC considered that the above determinations are not WT/DS/OV/25 
Page 16  
 
 in conformity with the obligations of the US under Articles 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 (including annex II), 11.1, 
11.3, 11.4,18.3 and 18.4 of the Anti Dumping Agreement; Articles 10, 11, 12, 15, 21.1, 21.3, 21.4, 32.3 and 32.5 of the SCM Agreement; Articles VI a nd X of the GATT 1994; and Article XVI:4 of the 
WTO Agreement. On 7 and 8 August 2002 respectivel y Canada and Japan requested to join the 
consultations.  
9. WT/DS256 – Turkey – Import Ban on Pet Food from Hungary 
Complaint by Hungary. On 3 May 2002, Hungary requ ested consultations with Turkey. This request 
was in respect of Turkey's import ban on pet food from Hungary. Hungary claimed that this import 
ban, which applies to any European country from th e beginning of 2001, is imposed with the declared 
intention to be protected against the spread of  BSE (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopety). Hungary 
submitted that, since Hungary is a BSE-free country, the danger of alleged cross-infection does not 
seem to have any scientific basis. Hungary also noted that its pet food is used exclusively for the 
feeding of cats and dogs. In addition, Hungary submi tted that there was neither official publication of 
the Turkish regulation imposing the ban, nor notif ication of it to the relevant WTO Committee. 
Hungary considered that the import ban appears to be inconsistent with Turkey's obligations under 
Article XI of the GATT 1994; Articles 2.2, 2.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.6, 6.1, 6.2 and 7 and Annex B of the SPS 
Agreement; Article 14 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
Hungary also claimed that Turkey's measure appe ars to nullify and impair the benfits accruing to 
Hungary directly or indirectly under the said agreements 
10. WT/DS247 – United States – Provisional Anti-Dumping Measure on Imports of Certain 
Softwood Lumber from Canada 
Complaint by Canada. On 6 March 2002, Canada re quested consultations under Article 4.8 of the 
DSU (urgency procedure) with th e United States regarding an anti -dumping measure applied by the 
US to imports of softwood lumber from Canada. Sp ecifically, Canada expressed concern about three 
aspects of the US anti-dumping measure. Canada considered that:  
• the initiation of the investigation was, therefore,  inconsistent with Articles 5.2 and 5.3 of the 
AD Agreement and, therefore, the application of  provisional measures was inconsistent with 
Article 7.1 of the AD Agreement;  
• the preliminary dumping determination was incons istent with Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the AD 
Agreement; and  
• the "zeroing" methodology applied by the US in the preliminary investigation was 
inconsistent with Article 2.4.2 of the AD Agreement. 
The US, although accepting the request for consultati ons, however did not accept that this was a case 
of urgency for the purpose of Article 4.8 of the DSU.  
E. YEAR  2001 
1. WT/DS242 – European Communities – Ge neralized System of Preferences 
Complaint by Thailand. On 7 December 2001, Tha iland requested consultati ons with the EC under 
Article XXIII of GATT 1994 in respect of measures under the EC's Generalized System of 
Preferences ("GSP") scheme. The GSP scheme w as at the time implemented through Council 
Regulation (EC) No. 2820/98 of 21 December 1998 applying a multiannual scheme of generalized  WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page 17 
 
 
 tariff preferences for the period of 1 July 1999 to 31  December 2001, and was e xpected to continue to 
be implemented through the Ame nded Proposal for a Council Regulation applying a scheme of 
generalized tariff preferences for the period 1 Janua ry 2002 to 31 December 2004 dated 14 November 
2001.  
Thailand considered that certain measures under the EC 's GSP adversely affect imports into the EC of 
goods originating in Thailand. In particular, Th ailand claimed that, through its GSP scheme as 
implemented, the EC failed to carry out its obligations under Article I of GATT 1994 and the 
Enabling Clause, as incorporated into GATT 1994.  
According to Thailand, the benefits accruing to it di rectly or indirectly under the WTO Agreement are 
being nullified or impaired as a result of this allege d failure by the EC to carry out its obligations 
under the WTO Agreement. Thailand also made a non-violation claim to the effect that the 
application by the EC of the above-mentioned meas ures nullifies or impairs the benefits accruing to 
Thailand directly or indirectly  under the WTO Agreement pursuan t to Article XXIII:1(b) of GATT 
1994.  
Costa Rica (on 17 December 2001), Guatemala ( on 19 December 2001), Honduras and Nicaragua (on 
20 December 2001), and Colombia (on 24 December 2001) requested to be joined in the consultations 
as third parties but not admitted because these are cons ultations under Article XXIII. Colombia raised 
the matter under "other business" in the DSB of 18 Ja nuary 2002. It admitted that it was not de jure 
entitled to be joined in consultations under Article XX III, but stated that this raised the issue of "co-
defendants" under the DSU again.  
2. WT/DS239 – United States – Anti-Dumping Duties on Silicon Metal from Brazil 
Complaint by Brazil. On 17 September 2001, Brazil requested consultations with the US. On 1 
November 2001, Brazil requested that their origin al request for consultations be cancelled and 
replaced with a new request. In this new request, Brazi l requested consultations with the US in respect 
of the following:  
• Antidumping duties imposed by the US on imports of silicon metal from Brazil: Antidumping 
Duty Order: Silicon Metal From Brazil, 56 Fe d. Reg. 36135 (July 31, 1991) (US case number 
A-351-806). 
• Section 351.106(c) of the US Department of Commerce's ("Department") regulations, which 
establishes that a de minimis margin of 0.5 percent applies for administrative reviews. 
• US "zeroing" methodology when establishing margins of dumping, as reflected in Chapter 6 
of the Antidumping Manual of the Department a nd in Section 771(35) of the Tariff Act of 
1930. 
According to Brazil, the above methodologies are inconsis tent with Articles 2.4.2, 5.8, 9.3, 11.1, 11.2 
and 18.3 of the AD Agreement.  
On 28 September 2001, Thailand requested to join the consultations. On 19 November 2001, the EC 
requested to join the consultations.  
3. WT/DS233 – Argentina – Measures affecting the Import of Pharmaceutical Products 
Complaint by India. On 25 May 2001, India request ed consultations with Argentina concerning 
Argentina's Law No. 24.766 and Decree No. 150/92 . According to India, these measures constitute WT/DS/OV/25 
Page 18  
 
 unnecessary obstacles to international trade and prevent Indian medicines, drugs and other 
pharmaceuticals from entering into the Argentinean ma rket, thus discriminating against Indian drugs 
vis-à-vis like products of other countries and of Argentina.  
According to India, the above measures require that  before entering the Argentinean market, all drugs 
and other pharmaceuticals must be registered with  the National Administration of Drugs, Foodstuffs 
and Medical Technology, Ministry of Health of Ar gentina. The above Decree  contains two annexes 
listing countries.  
• In respect of Annex I countries, pharmaceutical products are required to be manufactured in 
facilities approved by the relevant governme ntal bodies of these countries or by the 
Argentinean Ministry of Health and meet th e National Health Authority's manufacturing and 
quality control requirements. 
• In respect of Annex II countries, manufacturing facilities are required to be inspected and 
approved by the Ministry of Health of Arge ntina before export of these pharmaceutical 
products into Argentina.  
According to India, it does not figure in either of  those two annexes. This alleged discrimination 
would have led to total lack of market acce ss for Indian drugs and pharmaceutical products in 
Argentina. India considered that infringement of th e following provisions have taken place: Articles 2 
(especially 2.2), 5 (especially 5.1 and 5.2) and 12 of the TBT Agreement; Articles I and III of the 
GATT 1994; and Article XVI:4 of the Agreement establishing the WTO.  
4. WT/DS230 – Chile – Safeguard Measures an d Modification of Schedules Regarding 
Sugar 
Complaint by Colombia. On 17 April 2001, Colombia  requested consultations with Chile concerning 
the definitive safeguard measures imposed by Chile  on 20 January 2000 in respect of a number of 
agricultural products, including sugar, and extended in November 2000 for the duration of one year; 
and Chile's decision of 14 March 2001 not to recognize Colombia's substantial in terest to be consulted 
with respect to the modification of concessions rega rding, inter alia, refined sugar (HS sub-heading 
17.01.99.00).  
In November of 2000, Chile had notified its inten tion to modify these concessions pursuant to Article 
XXVIII of GATT 1994. According to Colombia, the a bove measures are inconsistent with Chile's 
obligations under the following provisions Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 and 12 of the Safeguards 
Agreement; Articles II, XIX and XXVIII of GATT 1994; and the Understanding on the Interpretation 
of Article XXVIII of the GATT 1994 and the Guide lines of 10 November 1980 regarding Procedures 
for Negotiations under Article XXVIII.  
According to Colombia, the Chilean  measures, taken together or i ndividually, appear to nullify and 
impair benefits accruing to Colombia under the cite d agreements. As indicated by Colombia in its 
request, this new request replaces in its totality the re quest for consultations by Colombia circulated as 
WT/DS228/1.  
5. WT/DS229 – Brazil – Anti-Dumping Duties on Jute Bags from India 
Complaint by India. On 9 April 2001, India re quested consultations with Brazil concerning:   WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page 19 
 
 
 • the determination by the Brazilian government to continue to impose anti-dumping duties on 
jute bags and bags made of jute yarn from India, based on an allegedly forged document 
regarding dumping margin attributed to a non-existing Indian company;  
• its refusal to reconsider the decision to conti nue anti-dumping duties on Indian jute products 
despite the fact that the non-existence of th at company was brought to the notice of the 
authorities;  
• non-consideration of the fresh evidence regardi ng cost of production, domestic sales prices, 
export prices, etc., of Indian jute manufacturers,  and refusal to initiate review of the decision 
to impose anti-dumping duties;  
• the general practice of Brazil regarding revi ew and imposition of anti-dumping duties; and  
• Brazilian anti-dumping laws and regulations, in cluding, but not limited to, Article 58 of 
Decree No. 1.602 of 1995.  
According to India, the provisions with which these determinations and legal provisions appear to be 
inconsistent include, but are not limited to Articl es VI and X of GATT 1994; Articles 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 
(especially 6.6, 6.7, 6.8 and Annex II, 6.9, 6.10), 11, 12, 17.6(i), 18.3, 18.4; and Article XVI of the 
WTO Agreement.  
In addition, the determination to continue the anti-dumping duties allegedly nullifies and impairs 
benefits accruing to India under, or otherwise im pedes the attainment of objectives of, the cited 
agreements.  
6. WT/DS226 – Chile – Provisional Safeguard Measure on Mixtures of Edible Oils 
Complaint by Argentina. On 19 February 2001, Argentina requested consultations with Chile 
concerning a provisional safeguard measure on imports of mixed edible oils (tariff heading 1517.9000 
of the Chilean Harmonised System), adopted by the Chilean authorities on 11 January 2001, and 
consisting of an ad valorem duty of 48% on impo rts of those products. On 10 January 2001 the 
notification by Chile of the initiation of th e investigation was circulated as document 
G/SG/N/6/CHL/5, and on 19 January 2001 the notification of the recommendation by the Chilean 
investigating authority to impose a provisional safeguard measure was circulated as document 
G/SG/N/7/5/Suppl.1.  
Argentina claimed that the provisional safeguard me asure is inconsistent w ith Chile's obligations 
under Article XIX of GATT 1994 and the SA, including, but not limited to, Articles 2, 4, 6 and 12.  
7. WT/DS225 – United States – Anti-Dumping Duties on Seamless Pipe from Italy 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 5 Februa ry 2001, the EC requested consultations with 
the US concerning anti-dumping duties imposed by the US on imports of seamless line and pressure 
pipe ("seamless pipe") from Italy. The request relates in particular to the final results of a sunset review of the measure, carried out by the US Department of Commerce (DOC) and published in the 
federal register on 7 November 2000. It also covers  certain aspects of the procedures followed by the 
DOC for initiating sunset reviews which are contained in Section 751 c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 and 
in the implementing regulations issued by the DOC.  
The EC considered that the final results of the s unset review are in breach of Articles 5.8, 11.1 and 
11.3 of the AD Agreement. The EC also considered  that the initiation of the sunset review is WT/DS/OV/25 
Page 20  
 
 inconsistent with Articles 11.1,  11.3, and 18.4 of the Anti Dumping Agreement and with Article 
XVI.4 of the WTO Agreement .  
8. WT/DS224 – United States – US Patents Code 
Complaint by Brazil. On 31 January 2001, Brazil re quested consultations with the US concerning the 
provisions of the US Patents Code, in particular those of Chapter 18 [38] – "Patent Rights in 
Inventions Made with Federal Assistance". Brazil de tected several discriminatory elements in the US 
Patents Code, including, but not limited to, the following examples:  
• the stipulation that no small business firm or  non-profit organization which receives title to 
any subject invention shall grant to any person the exclusive right to use or sell any subject 
invention in the US unless such person agr ees that any products embodying the subject 
invention or produced through the use of the in vention will be manufactured substantially in 
the US. 
• Brazil also referred to a requirement that ea ch funding agreement with a small business firm 
or non-profit organization shall contain appr opriate provisions to effectuate the above-
mentioned requirement; and  
• the statutory restrictions limiting the right to use or sell any federally owned invention in the 
US only to a licensee that ag rees that any products embodying the invention or produced 
through the use of the invention will be manufactured substantially in the US.  
Brazil requested consultations with the US on these a nd other provisions of the US Patents Code, to 
"understand how the US justifies the consistency of  such requirements with its obligations under the 
TRIPS Agreement, especially Articles 27 and 28, the TRIMs Agreement, Article 2 in particular, and 
Articles III and XI of GATT 1994".  
9. WT/DS223 – European Communities – Tariff-R ate Quota on Corn Gluten Feed from 
the United States 
Complaint by the United States. On 25 January 2001,  the US requested consultations with the EC 
concerning the application by the EC of a tariff-ra te quota (TRQ) on corn gluten feed imported from 
the US. The TRQ was made applicable 5 days afte r the date of adoption by the DSB of the panel 
report on US – Wheat Gluten (WT/DS166) stating that the US safeguard measure on wheat gluten was incompatible with the WTO Agreements.  
According to the US the TRQ does not satisfy th e requirements of the Safeguards Agreement for a 
Member to suspend concessions or other obligations  and, therefore, the imposition of the TRQ on 
corn gluten feed imported from the US appears to be  inconsistent with Articles I, II and XIX of the 
GATT 1994, and Articles 8.1, 8.2, and 8.3 of the Safeguards Agreement.  
10. WT/DS220 – Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard Measures Relating to Certain 
Agricultural Products 
Complaint by Guatemala. On 5 January 2001, Guatemala requested consultations with Chile 
concerning:  
1. the Chilean legislation regarding safeguards and price band systems, including Law 18.525, 
as subsequently amended by Law 18.591 and Law 19.546, as well as implementing 
regulations and complementary and/or amending provisions;   WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page 21 
 
 
 2. the initiation of an investigation regarding products subject to the price band system contained 
in notification (G/SG/N/6/CHL/2), the conduc t of the investigation, the preliminary 
determination contained in notification (G /SG/N/7/CHL/2/Suppl.1), and the definitive 
determination contained in notifications  (G/SG/N/8/CHL/1), (G/SG/N/10/CHL/1), 
(G/SG/N/8/CHL/1/Suppl.1) and (G/SG/N/10/CHL/1/Suppl.1); these notifications indicate that 
wheat, wheat flour, sugar and edible vegetable o ils are subject to said safeguard measures;  
3. the request for an extension of these measures contained in notifications 
(G/SG/N/10/CHL/1/Suppl.2) and (G/SG/N/10/CHL/1/Suppl.2/Corr.1).  
Guatemala considered that the measures referred to:  
• under (1) are inconsistent with, inter alia, Article II of GATT 1994 and Article 4 of the 
Safeguards Agreement,  
• under (2) are inconsistent with, inter alia, Artic les 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 12 of the Safeguards 
Agreement, and Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994, and  
• under (3) appears to be inconsistent with, inte r alia, Chile's obligations under GATT 1994 and 
Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 12 of the Safeguards Agreement.  
F. YEAR  2000 
1. WT/DS218 – United States – Countervailing Du ties on Certain Carbon Steel Products 
from Brazil 
Complaint by Brazil. On 21 December 2000, Brazil requested consultations with the US concerning 
an aspect of US countervailing duty practice a nd the imposition of countervailing duties on certain 
carbon steel products originating in Br azil. Brazil is concerned with th e practice of the US of applying 
its countervailing duty laws so as to consistently  find that privatized companies benefit from pre-
privatization subsidy benefits, and the unwillingness of the United States to bring its practice into 
conformity with the SCM Agreement. In addition, Br azil is concerned with the results of a continued 
imposition of an order and a fina l countervailing duty decision by the US based on a finding that the 
benefits from equity infusions provided to companie s prior to their privatization are passed through to 
the companies following a change in ownership and control.  
Brazil considered that findings that three compan ies were benefitting from subsidies provided prior to 
their privatization are in breach of Articles 1.1(b), 10, 14, 19 and 21 of the SCM Agreement, in so far as they are based on supposed benefits from equity infusions granted to the companies prior to their 
privatization. In addition, Brazil considers that th e decision not to terminate the investigation is in 
breach of Article 11.9 of the SCM Agreement. Br azil notes that the Commerce Department relied on 
the same analysis of subsidization following a privat ization, which was found to be inconsistent with 
WTO obligations by the Appellate Body in US –Lead and Bismuth II.  
2. WT/DS216 – Mexico – Provisional Anti-Dumping Measure on Electric Transformers 
Complaint by Brazil. On 20 December 2000, Brazil requested consultations with Mexico concerning 
the 17 July 2000 provisional anti-dumping measur e on electronic transformers having a power of 
more than 10.000 KVA, classified under tariff lin e 8504.23.01 of the General Import Law, from 
Brazil. Brazil considered that the above determination and the resulting provisional measures are inconsistent with Mexico's ob ligations under the AD Agreement a nd the GATT 1994, in particular, 
with Articles 5.2, 5.3, 5.8, 6.8, 7.1(i), 7.1(ii) and Annex II of the AD Agreement.  WT/DS/OV/25 
Page 22  
 
 3. WT/DS215 – Philippines – Anti-Dumping Measures Regarding Polypropylene Resins 
from Korea 
Complaint by Korea. On 15 December 2000, Kor ea requested consultations with the Philippines 
concerning the Preliminary and Final Determinations  of the Tariff Commission of the Philippines on 
Polypropylene Resins from Korea, dated 15 N ovember 1999 and 11 September 2000 respectively. 
Korea considered that errors were made by the Ph ilippines in those determinations which resulted in 
erroneous findings and defective conclusions with regard to, am ong others, like product, dumping, 
injury, and causality, as well as the imposition, calc ulation and collection of anti-dumping margins 
which are incompatible with the obligations of the Philippines under the provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, in particular, but not necessarily limited to, Articles 2, 3, 5, 6 (including Annex 
II), 7, 9, and 12, and Article VI of GATT 1994. 
4. WT/DS209 – European Communities – Measures Affecting Soluble Coffee 
Complaint by Brazil. On 12 October 2000, Brazil re quested consultations with the EC concerning 
measures applied under the EC's Generalized System of Preferences scheme (GSP) that affect imports 
of soluble coffee originating in Brazil. The measur es in question include the so called "graduation" 
mechanism, which progressively and selectively re duces or eliminates preferences granted to specific 
products and/or beneficiary countries under the GSP scheme; and the "drugs regime", which confers a 
special preferential treatment for products origin ating in the Andean and Central American Common 
Market countries that are conducting a campaign to combat drugs.  
According to Brazil, the EC legislation that estab lishes the special treatment for products – among 
which soluble coffee – is Council Regulation (E C) No. 1256/96, dated 20 June 1996, and current 
Council Regulation (EC) No. 2820/98, dated 21 Dece mber 1998. Brazil considered that the above 
measures, both separately and jointly, adversely aff ect the importation into the EC of soluble coffee 
originating in Brazil. Brazil alleged that these measur es are inconsistent with the obligations of the EC 
under the Enabling Clause and under Article I of GATT 1994.  
5. WT/DS208 – Turkey – Anti-Dumping Duty on Steel and Iron Pipe Fittings 
Complaint by Brazil. On 9 October 2000, Brazil re quested consultations with Turkey concerning the 
anti-dumping duty on steel and iron pipe fittings from Brazil, imposed by Communication No. 2000/3 
(published in the Turkish official gazette on 26 Ap ril 2000). Brazil considered that Turkey failed to 
ensure proper notifications in this case, that its est ablishment of the facts was not proper, and that its 
evaluation of these facts was not unbiased nor objective, particularly in relation to:  
• the initiation of the investigation;  
• the conduct of the investigation, including the evaluation, findings and determinations of 
dumping and injury;  
• the evaluation, findings and determinations of  the causal link between dumping and injury;  
• the imposition of the anti-dumping duty.  
Brazil considered that Turkey has acted inconsiste ntly with Article VI of the GATT 1994 and Articles 
2, 3, 5, 6, 12 and 15 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.   WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page 23 
 
 
 6. WT/DS205 – Egypt – Import Prohibition on Canned Tuna with SoyBean Oil 
Complaint by Thailand. On 22 September 2000, Thailand requested consultations with Egypt 
concerning the prohibition imposed by Egypt on importation of canned tuna with soybean oil from 
Thailand, pursuant to Letter dated 2 January 2000 of  the Ministry of Economy and Foreign Trade of 
Egypt and Circular Note no. 5 of the Year 2000 issued on 13 January 2000 by the Customs Authority 
of Egypt. Thailand considered th at, through the above-mentioned measures, the Arab Republic of 
Egypt failed to carry out its obligations under th e following provisions of the Marrakesh Agreement 
Establishing the World Trade Organization: Articles I, XI, and XIII of the GATT, and Articles 2, 3 
and 5, and Annex B, paragraph 2 and paragraph 5, of the SPS Agreement. 
7. WT/DS203 – Mexico – Measures Affecting Trade in Live Swine 
Complaint by the United States. On  10 July 2000, the US requested consultations with Mexico in 
respect of Mexico's 20 October 1999 definitive anti-dumping measure on live swine for slaughter 
(merchandise classified under tariff classificati on 0103.92.99 of the General Import Law) exported 
from the United States, independent ly from the country or origin, and actions by Mexico in the 
conduct of the anti-dumping investigation resulting in that measure.  
In the view of the US the measures are inconsistent  with Mexico's obligations under Articles 2.2, 2.3, 
3, 5.1, 5.6, 7 and 8 of the SPS Agreement; Article 4.2 of the Agriculture Agreement; Articles 2 and 5 
of the TBT Agreement; and Articles III:4 and XI:1 of the GATT 1994.  
8. WT/DS201 – Nicaragua – Measures Affectin g Imports from Honduras and Colombia 
Complaint by Honduras. On 26 June 2000, Honduras requested consultations with Nicaragua in 
respect of Law 325 of 1999 whereby a tax is established on goods and services coming from or 
originating in Honduras and Colombia as well as implementing Decree 129-99 and Ministerial Order 
041-99. Honduras considered that Law 325 of  1999 and implementing Decree 129-99 are 
incompatible with Nicaragua's obligations under the GATT 1994, and in particular Articles I and II 
thereof, and that the aforementioned measures as well as Ministerial Order 041-99 are incompatible 
with Nicaragua's obligations under Articles II and XVI of the GATS. 
9. WT/DS200 – United States – Section 306 of the Trade Act 1974 and Amendments 
thereto 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 5 June  2000, the EC requested consultations with the 
US concerning Section 306 of the Trade Act of 1974, as last amended by Section 407 of the Trade and Development Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-200) . The EC considered that Section 306, as 
amended, provides for a mandatory a nd unilateral revision of the list of products subject to suspension 
of GATT 1994 concessions or other Section 301(a) acti on 120 days after the application of the first 
suspension and then every 180 days thereafter, in order to affect imports from Members which have 
been determined by the United States not to have  implemented recommendations made pursuant to a 
WTO dispute settlement proceeding. In particular, the EC alleged that:  
• Section 306, as amended, is in breach of the DSU since it mandates unilateral action without 
any prior multilateral control;  
• The measure mandates suspension of or threats to suspend concessions or other obligations 
other than those on which authorisation was grante d by the DSB. As a practical result, all US 
concessions bound in its Schedule of commit ments under the GATT 1994 can, according to 
the EC, be unilaterally modified at will;  WT/DS/OV/25 
Page 24  
 
 • The measure is in breach of the obligation of equivalence, in that it creates a structural 
imbalance between the cumulative level of the suspension of concessions and the level of nullification and impairment as determined  under relevant DSU procedures; and  
• The measure creates a chilling effect on the mark et-place, thus affecting the security and 
predictability of the multilateral trading system.  
Hence, the EC considered that Section 306 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended by Section 407 of 
the Trade and Development Act of 2000, is incons istent with, in particular, the following WTO 
provisions: Articles 3.2, 21.5, 22 and 23 of the DSU; Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement; and 
Articles I, II and XI of the GATT 1994.  
10. WT/DS197 – Brazil – Measures on Minimum Import Prices 
Complaint by the United States. On 30 May 2000, the US requested consultations with Brazil 
concerning the use of the latter's minimum import prices for customs valuation purposes. The measures at issue are D ecree No. 2.498/98 and other related stat utes and regulations, which establish a 
system to verify the declared values of impor ted goods. The US asserted that Brazil utilises this 
verification system – in conjunction with non-auto matic import licensing procedures – to prohibit or 
restrict the import of products with declared values below what the US considers arbitrarily 
determined minimum prices. The US considered th at Brazil'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 and XI of the GATT 1994; 
Articles 1 and 3 of the Agreement on Import Licensi ng Procedures; Articles 2 and 7 of the Agreement 
on Textiles and Clothing; and Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
11. WT/DS191 – Ecuador – Definitive Anti-Dum ping Measure on Cement from Mexico 
Complaint by Mexico. On 15 March 2000, Mexico re quested consultations with Ecuador concerning a 
definitive anti-dumping measure imposed by Ecuador, through publication in the Official Register 
No. 361 of 14 January 2000, on imports of cement from Mexico falling under tariff subheading 2523.29.00, as well as Ecuador's actions preceding th at measure. Mexico alleged that the definitive 
anti-dumping measure and the actions that preceded it, including the imposition of the provisional 
anti-dumping measure and the initiation of the investigation,  violate, inter alia, Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 
7, 9, 12, 18 and Annex II of the Anti-Dumping Ag reement as well as Article VI of the GATT 1994.  
12. WT/DS187 – Trinidad and Tobago – Provisional Anti-Dumping Measure on Macaroni 
and Spaghetti from Costa Rica 
Complaint by Costa Rica. On 17 January 2000, Costa Rica requested consultations with Trinidad and 
Tobago in respect of Legal Notice No. 237 of the Ministry of Trade and Industry of Trinidad and 
Tobago, pursuant to which provisional anti-dumping duties are imposed on the importation of macaroni and spaghetti from Costa Rica, the actions  preceding that decision (see WT/DS185) as well 
as the 1992 Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties Act of 1992, as amended by the Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties (Amendment) Act of 1995 and the Anti-Dumping and Countervailing 
Duties Regulations of 1996. Costa Rica claimed that  these measures are inconsistent particularly with 
certain paragraphs of Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 18 as well as Annex I and II of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement.  WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page 25 
 
 
 13. WT/DS186 – United States – Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 and Amendments 
thereto 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 12 Janua ry 2000, the EC requested consultations with 
the US in respect of Section 337 of the US Tariff Act (19 USC. § 1337) and the related Rules of Practice and Procedure of the International Trade Commission contained in Chapter II of Title 19 of 
the US Code of Federal Regulations. The EC alle ged that those measures violate Article III of GATT 
1994 and TRIPS Agreement Articles 2 (in conjunction with Article 2 Paris Convention), 3, 9 (in 
conjunction with Article 5 Berne Conve ntion), 27, 41, 42, 49, 50 and 51.  
G. YEAR
 1999 
1. WT/DS185 – Trinidad and Tobago – Anti-Dumping Measures on Pasta from Costa Rica 
Complaint by Costa Rica. On 18 November 1999, Co sta Rica requested consultations with Trinidad 
and Tobago in respect of  
• the anti-dumping investigation being carried out by  Trinidad and Tobago at the request of the 
company "Cereal Products Limited" against imports of pasta from the Costa Rican company "Roma Prince Sociedad Anónima",  
• proceedings undertaken as part of a preliminary hearing prior to the initiation of the anti-
dumping investigation, and  
• Articles 3 and 5 of the 1996 Antidumping and Countervailing Duties Regulation of Tobago 
and Trinidad. . 
Costa Rica claimed that these measures are inconsiste nt with Articles 2, 3, 5, 6 and 12 of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement. 
2. WT/DS183 – Brazil – Measures on Import Licensing and Minimum Import Prices 
Complaint by the European Communities. This requ est, dated 14 October 1999, is in respect of a 
number of Brazilian measures, particularly Brazil' s non-automatic licensing system and the minimum 
pricing practice, which allegedly restrict EC e xports – notably of textile products, Sorbitol and 
Carboxymethylcellulose (CMC). The EC claimed that those Brazilian measures violate, in particular, 
Articles II, VIII, X and XI of the GATT 1994; Artic le 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture; Articles 
1, 3, 5 and 8 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures; and Articles 1 through 7 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of the GATT 1994. 
3. WT/DS182 – Ecuador – Provisional Anti-Dum ping Measure on Cement from Mexico 
Complaint by Mexico. On 5 October 1999, Mexico requested consultations with Ecuador concerning 
a provisional anti-dumping measure imposed by Ecuador , through publication in the Official Register 
of 14 July 1999, on imports of cement from Mexico  falling under tariff heading 2523.29.00, as well as 
Ecuador's actions preceding that measure. Mexico  considered that the provisional anti-dumping 
measure and the actions preceding it viol ate, inter alia, Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 18 and Annex 
II of the Anti-Dumping Agreement as well as Article VI of the GATT 1994.  WT/DS/OV/25 
Page 26  
 
 4. WT/DS180 – United States – Reclassification of Certain Sugar Syrups 
Complaint by Canada. On 6 September 1999 Canada requested consultations with the US in respect 
of the proposed reclassification of certain sugar sy rups by the US Customs Service. Canada claimed 
that these US measures are in violation of Ar ticle II of the GATT 1994 and Article 4 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture. In addition, Canada allege d that these measures nullify or impair benefits 
accruing to it under the same provisions of the GATT and the Agreement on Agriculture.  
5. WT/DS173 – France – Measures Relating to the Development of a Flight Management 
System 
Complaint by the United States. On 21 May 1999, the US requested consultations with France. This 
complaint is identical to the one a ddressed to the EC below (WT/DS172).  
6. WT/DS172 – European Communities – Measures relating to the Development of a 
Flight Management system 
Complaint from the United States. On 21 May 1999, th e US requested consultations with the EC in 
respect of alleged actionable subsidies granted or ma intained to a French company, Sextant Avionique 
("Sextant"), to develop a new flight management sy stem ("FMS") adapted to Airbus aircraft. The US 
alleged that the French government has agreed to  grant, and the European Commission has approved, 
a loan, on preferential and non-commercial terms, in  the amount of 140 million French francs, to be 
disbursed over three years, for a project in whic h Sextant will develop a FMS adapted to Airbus 
aircraft. The US considered that this aid:  
• is a specific subsidy within the meaning of Articles 1 and 3 of the SCM Agreement, which 
subsidy has caused and continues to cause adverse effects within the meaning of Article 5 of 
the SCM Agreement;  
• has caused and continues to cause serious prejudi ce within the meaning of Articles 5(c) and 6 
of the SCM Agreement because the subsidy may involve the direct forgiveness of debt;  
• may displace or impede imports of FMS from the United States into France;  
• may displace or impede exports of FMS from th e United States to third country markets;  
• may cause significant price undercutting by the s ubsidised product as compared with the price 
of a like product of another Member in the same market or may cause significant price suppression, price depression or lost sales in the same market; and  
• has caused and continues to cause a nullification or  impairment of benefits accruing directly 
or indirectly to it under GATT 1994 within the meaning of Article XXIII:1(b) of GATT 1994, 
and Article 5(b) of the SCM Agreement.  
7. WT/DS168 – South Africa – Anti-Dumping Duties on Certain Pharmaceutical Products 
from India 
Complaint by India. On 1 April 1999, India requested  consultations with South Africa in respect of a 
recommendation for the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties by the South African Board on Tariffs and Trade (BTT), contained in its Report No. 3799, dated 3 October 1997, on the import of 
certain pharmaceutical products from India. Indi a alleged that South Africa initiated anti-dumping 
proceedings against the importation of ampicillin and amoxycillin of 250mg capsules from India. The  WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page 27 
 
 
 BTT allegedly made a preliminary determinati on on 26 March 1997 that am picillin and amoxycillin 
of 250mg and 500mg capsules, exported by M/S Randa xy Laboratories Ltd of India, were being 
dumped into the South African Customs Union (SACU). This was allegedly followed by a 
recommendation to impose final duties on these produc ts by the BTT, which was reported on 10 
September 1997. India contended that:  
• the definition and calculation by the BTT of norma l value is inconsistent with South Africa's 
WTO obligations, because erroneous methodology was used for determining the normal value 
and the resulting margin of dumping;  
• the determination of injury was not based on positive evidence and did not include an 
evaluation of all relevant economic factors a nd indices having a bearing on the state of the 
industry, which led to an e rroneous determination of mate rial injury suffered by the 
petitioner;  
• the South African authorities' establishment of  the facts was not proper and that their 
evaluation was not unbiased or objective; and  
• the South African authorities have not taken into account India's special situation as a 
developing country.  
India alleged violations of Articles 2, 3, 6(a) to (c) individually and in conjunction with 12, 12 and 15 
of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; and Articles I and VI of GATT 1994.  
8. WT/DS167 – United States – Countervailing Duty Investigation with respect to Live 
Cattle from Canada 
Complaint by Canada. On 19 March 1999, Canada requested consultations with the US concerning 
the initiation of a countervailing duty investigation by the US, on 22 December 1998, with respect to 
live cattle from Canada. Ca nada alleged that:  
• the initiation of this investigation is inconsis tent with US obligations under the Subsidies 
Agreement, including the fact that the written a pplication filed with the US Department of 
Commerce was not made by or on behalf of the domestic industry, and that there was not, 
sufficient information provided with respect to the measures or actions alleged to be 
subsidies, for purpose of initiating an i nvestigation under the SCM Agreement;  
• the measures or actions alleged to be subsidies e ither are not, in law or fact, subsidies within 
the meaning of the Subsidies Agreement, or do not confer more than a de minimis level of 
countervailing subsidy; and  
• this initiation of investigation is inconsistent  with US obligations under the Agreement on 
Agriculture relating to "due restraint".  
Canada alleged violations of Artic les 1, 2, 10, 11.1 – 11.5, and 13.1 of the Subsidies Agreement; and 
Article 13 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
9. WT/DS159 – Hungary – Safeguard Measure on  Imports of Steel Products from the 
Czech Republic 
Complaint by the Czech Republic. On 21 January 19 99, the Czech Republic requested consultations 
with Hungary in respect of the imposition of quan titative restrictions by Hungary on imports of a WT/DS/OV/25 
Page 28  
 
 broad range of steel products from the Czech Re public. The Czech Republic alleged that Hungary 
imposed a safeguard measure in the form of an im port quota on imports of a broad range of steel 
products from the Czech Republic, and that this measure only applies to the Czech Republic. The 
Czech Republic contended that these quantitative rest rictions are in breach of Hungary's obligations 
under GATT Articles I and XIX, as well as provisions of the Agreement on Safeguards. 
10. WT/DS158 – European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and 
Distribution of Bananas 
Complaint by Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Panama  and the United States. On 20 January 1999, 
these countries (complaining parties) requested c onsultations with the EC in respect of the 
implementation of the recommendations of the DS B in European Communities – Regime for the 
Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas. Th e complaining parties state that the 15 month 
reasonable period of time for the EC to implemen t the DSB's recommendations and rulings ended on 
1 January 1999 (see WT/DS27). The complaining parties alleged that the EC modified its regime in a manner that will not permit this disp ute to conclude at this time on the basis of a solution that is 
acceptable to their governments, and as a result, join tly and severally, request consultations with the 
EC concerning the EC banana regime establis hed by EC Regulation 404/93, as amended and 
implemented by Council Regulation 1637/98 of  20 July 1998 and EC Commission Regulation 
2362/98 of 28 October 1998. The complaining parties c ontended that their objective is to clarify and 
discuss in detail with the EC the various aspects of the EC's modified banana regime, including their 
effect on the market, their concerns about their WTO-inconsistency, and ways that the EC might 
modify its regime in order to produce a satisfactory settlement of this dispute.  
11. WT/DS157 – Argentina – Definitive Anti-Dum ping Measures on Imports of Drill Bits 
from Italy 
Complaint from the European Communities. On 14 January 1998, the EC requested consultations 
with Argentina in respect of definitive anti-dum ping measures allegedly imposed by Argentina on 
imports of drill bits from Italy. The EC stated that on 12 September 1998, Argentina imposed 
definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of drill b its from Italy. The investigation which led to 
the imposition of these measures had allegedly been  initiated on 21 February  1997. The EC alleged 
that due to the fact that Argentina's investigati on exceeded 18 months, it was in violation of Article 1 
of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. 
H. YEAR
 1998 
1. WT/DS154 – European Communities – Measures Affecting Differential and Favourable 
Treatment of Coffee 
Complaint by Brazil. On 7 December 1998, Brazil request ed consultations with the EC in respect of 
the special preferential treatment under the EC's Generalised System of Preferences (GSP). Brazil asserted that the EC GSP scheme is applicable to  products originating in the Andean Group of 
countries and the Central American Common Market  countries, that are conducting programs to 
combat drug production and trafficking. In the case of soluble coffee, this special preferential 
treatment, contained in Council Regulation (EC) No. 1256/96, amounts to duty free access into the 
EC market. Brazil stated that it is aware that there is a proposed Council Regulation which would 
unify all EC laws and regulations concerning the operation of the GSP scheme for both agricultural 
and industrial products. Brazil conte nded that this special treatment adversely affects the importation 
into the EC of soluble coffee originating in Brazi l. Brazil alleged that this special treatment is 
inconsistent with the Enabling Clause, as well as with Article I of GATT 1994. Brazil further alleges  WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page 29 
 
 
 that this special treatment nullifies or impairs bene fits accruing to Brazil directly or indirectly under 
the cited provisions. 
2. WT/DS153 – European Communities – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and 
Agricultural Chemical Products 
Complaint by Canada. On 2 December 1998, Canada requested consultations with the EC in respect 
of the protection of inventions in the area of pharmaceutical and agricultu ral chemical products under 
the relevant provisions of EC legislation, pa rticularly Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1768/92 and 
European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No . 1610/96, in relation to EC obligations under 
the TRIPS Agreement. Canada considered that unde r the above Regulations, a patent term extension 
scheme, which is limited to pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical products, has been 
implemented. Canada alleged th at Regulations (EEC) No. 1768/92 and (EC) No. 1610/96 are 
inconsistent with the EC's obligations not to di scriminate on the basis of field of technology, as 
provided by Article 27.1 of the TRIPS Agreemen t, because these Regulations only apply to 
pharmaceutical and agricultural products. 
3. WT/DS150 – India – Measures Affecting Customs Duties 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 30 Oct ober 1998, the EC requested consultations with 
India concerning a series of increases in customs duties allegedly implemented by India. The EC 
stated that the measures in question relate to Sc hedule 1 of the 1975 Customs Tariff Act, the Special 
Customs Duty, and the Special Additional Duty. Th e EC contended that under these measures, the 
aggregate value of tariffs resulting from the additi on of the different duties applied by India exceed 
India's WTO bound rates under a series of tariff head ings. The EC alleged violations of Articles 
II:1(b) and III:2 of GATT 1994. 
4. WT/DS149 – India – Import Restrictions 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 29 Oct ober 1998, the EC requested consultations with 
India concerning import restrictions allegedly mainta ined by India under its Export and Import Policy, 
1997-2002, for reasons other than Article XVIII:B of  GATT 1994. The EC stated that India notified 
these restrictions to the WTO in Part A of Annex I to its notification of 20  May 1997 under paragraph 
9 of the Understanding on the Balance-of-Payme nts Provisions of GATT 1994 (WT/BOP/N/24). India 
claimed that these restrictions are justified under Article XX and/or Article XXI of GATT 1994. The EC contended that these import restrictions constitute  an infringement of Articles III, X, XI, XIII and 
XVII of GATT 1994, Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, and Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures, and ca nnot be justified under Articles XX or XXI of 
GATT 1994. 
5. WT/DS148 – Czech Republic – Measure Affe cting Import Duty on Wheat from 
Hungary 
Complaint from Hungary. On 12 October 1998, Hunga ry requested consultations with the Czech 
Republic in respect of a regulation adopted by the Czech Republic which entered into force on 9 
October 1998, and which allegedly increased th e import duty of wheat originating in Hungary. 
Hungary asserted that the increased import duty on wheat (HS1001.1000, 1001.9099) exceeds several 
times the respective bound rates in the Czech Schedule for 1998. Hungary also alleged that it is the 
only country subject to this measure. Hungary cont ended that this measure is inconsistent with 
Articles I and II of GATT 1994, and Article 4 of th e Agreement on Agriculture. Hungary invoked the 
urgency provision of the DSU (4.8), due to the sev ere economic and trade losses that are being caused 
by this measure, which was expected to  remain in force until 26 April 1999. WT/DS/OV/25 
Page 30  
 
 6. WT/DS147 – Japan – Tariff Quotas and Subsidies Affecting Leather 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 8 Oct ober 1998, the EC requested consultations with 
Japan concerning the management of the tariff quotas for leather and the subsidies allegedly 
benefiting the leather industry and "Dowa" regions in  Japan. The EC stated that the management of 
the three tariff quotas is specified in a notice publishe d every year by the Ministry of International 
Trade & Industry (MITI), which is based on Article  6 of the Ministerial Order on the tariff quota 
system for heavy oil, crude oil, etc. The EC contended that:  
• the complexity of the management of the tariff quota system, as well as the fact that 
applications for licenses may only be submitted on a single day, appears open to criticism;  
• many licenses are granted for quantities without r eal economic interest, and some have a very 
short validity period;  
• the system leads to a situation that deters foreign companies from establishing in Japan for 
purposes of importing leather directly;  
• subsidies were granted on the basis of the "L aw concerning Special Fiscal Measures", which 
extended the duration of 15 subsidy programmes; and  
• these subsidies are specific and that the total va lue of these different subsidy programmes is 
liable to cause serious prejudice to its interests.  
The EC alleged violations of Articles 1(6), 3(5)(g),  (h), (i) and (j) of the Import Licensing Agreement, 
and Article 6 of the Subsidies Agreement.  
7. WT/DS145 – Argentina – Countervailing Duties on Imports of Wheat Gluten from the 
European Communities 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 23 September 1998, the EC requested consultations 
with the EC in respect of definitive countervaili ng duties allegedly imposed by Argentina on imports 
of wheat gluten from the EC. The EC stated th at Argentina imposed a countervailing duty on wheat 
gluten imports from the EC with effect from 23 July 1998. The investigation which led to the imposition of these duties had been initiated on 23 Oc tober 1996 and, consequently, the EC contended 
that the investigation exceeded 18 months, contrary to Article 11.11 of the Subsidies Agreement. The 
EC also claimed a violation of Article 10 of the same Agreement. 
8. WT/DS144 – United States – Certain Measures Affecting the Import of Cattle, Swine 
and Grain from Canada 
Complaint by Canada. On 25 Septem ber 1998, Canada requested consulta tions with the US in respect 
of certain measures, imposed by the US state of South Dakota and other states, prohibiting entry or 
transit to Canadian trucks carrying cattle, swine,  and grain. Canada alle ged that these measures 
adversely affect the importation into the United States of cattle, swine, and grain originating in 
Canada. Canada alleges violations of Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 13 and Annexes B and C of the SPS 
Agreement; Articles 2, 3, 5 and 7 of the TBT Agre ement; Article 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture; 
and Articles I, III, V, XI and XXIV:12 of GATT 1994. Canada also made a claim of nullification or 
impairment of benefits accruing to it under the c ited Agreements. Canada i nvoked Article 4.8 of the 
DSU for expedited consultations in view of th e perishable nature of the goods in question.  WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page 31 
 
 
 9. WT/DS143 – Slovak Republic- Measure Affectin g Import Duty on Wheat from Hungary 
Complaint from Hungary. On 18 September 1998, Hunga ry requested consultations with the Slovak 
Republic in respect of a regulation adopted by the Slovak Republic which entered into force on 10 
September 1998, which allegedly increased the import duty of wheat originating in Hungary. Hungary asserted that the increased import duty on wheat (HS1001.1000, 1001.90) amounts to 2540 SKK/t 
which equals to approximately 70% ad  valorem. Hungary alleged that:  
• the bound rates for these tariff lines in the Slovak Schedule for 1998 are set at 4.4% 
(HS1001.1000), 27% (HS1001.9010) and 22.5% (HS1001.9091, 1001.9099);  
• it is the only country subject to this measure; and  
• this measure is inconsistent with Articles I and II of GATT 1994, and Article 4 of the 
Agreement on Agriculture. Hungary invoked the urgency provision of the DSU due to the 
severe economic and trade losses that are being cau sed by this measure, which was expected 
to remain in force until 10 March 1999.  
10. WT/DS140 – European Communities – Anti-dumping Investigations Regarding 
Unbleached Cotton Fabrics from India 
Complaint by India. On 3 August 1998, India requ ested consultations with the EC in respect of 
alleged repeated recourse by the EC to anti-dum ping investigations on u nbleached cotton fabrics 
(UCF), from India. India considered, in the light  of the information which had become available 
before and after the adoption of Regulation 773/98, that:  
• the determination of standing, the initiation, th e selection of the sample, the determination of 
dumping and the injury are inconsistent with the EC's WTO obligations;  
• the establishment by the EC of the facts was not proper and that the EC's evaluation of facts 
was not unbiased and objective; and  
• the EC has not taken into account the special situation of India as a developing country.  
India alleged violations of Articles 2.2.1, 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.6, 3.3, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 4.1(I), 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 
5.8, 6.10, 7.1(I), 7.4, 9.1, 9.2,  12.1, 12.2 and 15 of the Anti-Dump ing Agreement, and Articles I and 
VI of GATT 1994. India also alleged nullification a nd impairment of benefits accruing to it under the 
cited agreements.  
11. WT/DS137 – European Communities – Measures Affecting Imports of Wood of 
Conifers from Canada 
Complaint by Canada. On 17 June 1998, Canada requested consultati ons with the EC in respect of 
certain measures concerning the importation into th e EC market of wood of conifers from Canada. 
The measures include, but are not limited to, Coun cil Directive 77/93, of 21 December 1976, as 
amended by Commission Directive 92/103/EEC, of 1 December 1992, and any relevant measures 
adopted by EC Member states affecting imports of wood of conifers from Canada into the EC. Canada 
alleged that these adversely affect the importation into the EC market of wood of conifers from 
Canada. Canada allege d violations of Articles I, III and XI of GATT 1994, Articles 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of 
the SPS Agreement, and Article 2 of the TBT Agreem ent. Canada also made a claim for nullification 
and impairment of benefits accruing to it indirectly under the cited agreements. WT/DS/OV/25 
Page 32  
 
 12. WT/DS134 – European Communities – Restrictions on Certain Import Duties on Rice 
Complaint by India. On 28 May 1998, India requested  consultations with the EC in respect of the 
restrictions allegedly introduced by an EC Re gulation establishing a so-called cumulative recovery 
system (CRS), for determining certain import duti es on rice, with effect from 1 July 1997. India 
contended that the measures introduced through th is new regulation will restrict the number of 
importers of rice from India, and will have a limiting effect on the export of rice from India to the EC. 
India alleged violations of Articles I, II, III, V II and XI of GATT 1994, Articles 1-7, 11 and Annex I 
of the Customs Valuation Agreement, Articles 1 an d 3 of the Import Licensing Agreement, Article 2 
of the TBT Agreement, Article 2 of the SPS Ag reement, and Article 4 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture. India also claimed nullification and impairment of benefits accruing to it under the 
various agreements cited. 
13. WT/DS133 – Slovak Republic – Measures Concerning the Importation of Dairy 
Products and the Transit of Cattle 
Complaint by Switzerland. On 11 May 1998, Swit zerland requested consultations with the Slovak 
Republic concerning measures imposed by the Slovak  Republic (in particular, a decree of 6 July 
1996) with respect to the importation of dairy produc ts and the transit of ca ttle. Switzerland contended 
that these measures had a negative impact on Swiss exports of cheese and cattle. Switzerland alleged 
that some of these measures are inc onsistent with Articles I, III, V, X and XI of GATT 1994, Article 5 
of the SPS Agreement, and Article 5 of the Import Licensing Agreement. 
14. WT/DS131 – France – Certain Income Tax Measures Constituting Subsidies 
Complaint by the United States. On 5 May 1998, the US requested consultations with France in 
respect of prohibited subsidies provided by France. The United States alleges that, based on unofficial 
English translations of the relevant legislati on and descriptions in secondary sources, it is its 
understanding that under French income tax law, a French company may deduct temporarily, certain 
start-up expenses of its foreign operations thr ough a tax-deductible reserve account. The US also 
believed that a French company may establish a special  reserve equal to ten percent of its receivable 
position at year end for medium-term credit risks in  connection with export sales. The US contended 
that each of these measures constitute an export subs idy, and that the deduction for start-up expenses 
constitute an import substitution subsidy, and as su ch both measures violate Article 3 of the SCM 
Agreement. 
15. WT/DS130 – Ireland – Certain Income Tax Measures Constituting Subsidies 
Complaint by the United States. On 5 May 1998, th e US requested consultations with Ireland in 
respect of prohibited subsidies provided by Ireland. The US alleged that, based on unofficial copies of 
the relevant legislation and descriptions in seconda ry sources, it is its understanding that under Irish 
income tax law, "special trading houses" qualify for a special tax rate in respect of trading income 
from the export sale of goods manufactured in Ire land. The US contended that this measure 
constitutes an export subsidy and as such vi olates Article 3 of the SCM Agreement. 
16. WT/DS129 – Greece – Certain Income Tax Measures Constituting Subsidies 
Complaint by the United States. On 5 May 1998, the US requested consultations with Greece in 
respect of prohibited subsidies provided by Greece. The US alleged that, based on unofficial English 
translations of relevant legislation and descripti ons in secondary sources, it is its understanding that 
under Greek income tax law, Greek exporters are entitled to a special annual tax deduction calculated  WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page 33 
 
 
 as a percentage of export income. The US contende d that this measure constitutes an export subsidy 
and as such violates Article 3 of the SCM Agreement. 
17. WT/DS128 – Netherlands – Certain Income Tax Measures Constituting Subsidies 
Complaint by the United States. On 5 May 1998, the US requested consultations with the Netherlands 
in respect of prohibited subsidies provided by the Netherlands. The US alleged that, based on 
unofficial English translations of the relevant legi slation and descriptions in secondary sources, it is its 
understanding that under Dutch income tax law, expor ters may establish a special "export reserve" for 
income derived from export sales. The US contended that this measure constitutes an export subsidy 
and as such violates Article 3 of the SCM Agreement. 
18. WT/DS127 – Belgium – Certain Income Tax Measures Constituting Subsidies 
Complaint by the United States. On 5 May 1998, th e US requested consultations with Belgium in 
respect of prohibited subsidies provided by Belgium.  The US alleged that, based on unofficial English 
translations of relevant legislation and descripti ons in secondary sources, it is its understanding that 
under Belgium income tax law, Belgian corporat e taxpayers receive a special BEF 400,000 (index 
linked) tax exemption for recruiting a departmental  head for exports (known as an "export manager"). 
The US contended that this measure constitutes an export subsidy and as such violates Article 3 of the 
SCM Agreement. 
19. WT/DS123 – Argentina – Safeguard Me asures on Imports of Footwear 
Complaint by Indonesia. On 23 April 1998, Ind onesia requested consultations with Argentina in 
respect of the same provisional and definitive saf eguard measures imposed by Argentina in the 
dispute WT/DS121. On 15 April 1999, Indonesia requested the establishment of a panel. In a 
communication dated 10 May 1999, Indonesia informed  the DSB that it was not pursuing its request 
for a panel at the next DSB meeting, but that this was without prejudice to its rights under the DSU to resurrect the panel request. 
20. WT/DS120 – India – Measures Affecting Export of Certain Commodities 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 16 Ma rch 1998, the EC requested consultations with 
India in respect of India's EXIM Policy (1997-20 02), which allegedly sets up a negative list for the 
export of several commodities. The EC alleged that under this policy, raw hides and skins are listed as 
products the export of which requires an export lic ence, and that these licen ces are systematically 
refused. The EC contended that this is in effect  an export embargo and violates Article XI of GATT 
1994. On 12 October 2000, the EC requested the est ablishment of a panel. At its meeting of 23 
October 2000, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. 
21. WT/DS118 – United States – Harbour Maintenance Tax 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 6 Februa ry 1998, the EC requested consultations with 
the US concerning the US Harbour Maintenance Tax (HMT), allegedly introduced by legislation in 
the US. The EC contended that the HMT violates Ar ticles I, II, III, VIII and X of GATT 1994, as well 
as the Understanding on the Interpretati on of Article II:1(B) of GATT 1994. 
22. WT/DS117 – Canada – Measures Affe cting Film Distribution Services 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 20 Janua ry 1998, the EC requested consultations with 
Canada in respect of Canada's alleged measures affecting film distribution services, including the WT/DS/OV/25 
Page 34  
 
 1987 Policy Decision on film distribution and its a pplication to European companies. The EC 
contended that these measures violate Articles II and III of GATS. 
23. WT/DS116 – Brazil – Measures Affecting Payment Terms for Imports 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 9 Janua ry 1998, the EC requested consultations with 
Brazil in respect of measures affecting payment term s for imports allegedly introduced by the Central 
Bank of Brazil. The EC contended that these measures violate Articles 3 and 5 of the Agreement on 
Import Licensing Procedures. 
I. YEAR
 1997 
1. WT/DS112 – Peru – Countervailing Duty Invest igation against Imports of Buses from 
Brazil 
Complaint by Brazil. On 23 December 1997, Brazil requ ested consultations with Peru in respect of a 
countervailing duty investigation being carried out by Peru against imports of buses from Brazil. 
Brazil contended that the procedures followed by the Peruvian authorities to initiate this investigation 
are inconsistent with Articles 11 and 13.1 of the Subsidies Agreement. 
2. WT/DS111 – United States – Tariff Rate Quota for Imports of Groundnuts 
Complaint by Argentina. On 19 December 1997, Arge ntina requested consultations with the US in 
respect of the alleged commercial detriment to Arge ntina resulting from a restrictive interpretation by 
the US of the tariff rate quota negotiated by th e two countries during the Uruguay Round, regarding 
the importation of groundnuts. Argentina alleged vi olations of Articles II, X and XII of GATT 1994, 
Articles 1, 4 and 15 of the Agreement on Agriculture , Article 2 of the Agreement on Rules of Origin, 
and Article 1 of the Import Licensing Agreement. Nu llification and impairment of benefits is also 
alleged. 
3. WT/DS109 – Chile – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages 
Complaint by the United States. On 11 December 1997,  the US requested consultations with Chile in 
respect of Chile's internal taxes on alcoholic beverages, which allegedly impose a higher tax on 
imported spirits than on pisco, a locally brewed spirit. The US contended that this differential 
treatment of imported spirits violates Article III: 2 of GATT 1994. Taxes on these beverages were at 
the time the subject of a complaint by the EC (WT/DS87), in respect of which a panel had already been established.  
4. WT/DS107 – Pakistan – Export Measures Affecting Hides and Skins 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 7 Nove mber 1997, the EC requested consultations with 
Pakistan in respect of a Notification enacted by th e Ministry of Commerce of Pakistan prohibiting the 
export of, inter alia, hides and skins and wet blue leather made from cow hides and cow calf hides. 
The EC contended that this measure limits access of  EC industries to competitive sourcing of raw and 
semi-finished materials.  
5. WT/DS105 – European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and 
Distribution of Bananas 
Complaint by Panama. On 24 October 1997, Panama re quested consultations with the EC in respect 
of the EC's regime for the importation, sale an d distribution of bananas as established through  WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page 35 
 
 
 Regulation 404/93, as well as any subsequent legisl ation, regulations or administrative measures 
adopted by the EC, including those reflecting the Framework Agreement on Bananas. Panama did not 
specify the WTO provisions which the EC regime vi olates. This is the same regime that was the 
subject of a successful challenge by the US, Ecua dor, Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico (WT/DS27).  
6. WT/DS104 – European Communities – Measures Affecting the Exportation of 
Processed Cheese 
Complaint by the United States. On 8 October 1997, th e US requested consultations with the EC in 
respect of export subsidies allegedly granted by the EC on processed cheese without regard to the 
export subsidy reduction commitments of the EC. The US contended that these measures by the EC 
distort markets for dairy products and adversely a ffect US sales of dairy products. The US alleged 
violations of Articles 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Agreem ent on Agriculture, and Article 3 of the Subsidies 
Agreement. 
7. WT/DS100 – United States – Measures Affecting Imports of Poultry Products 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 18 Au gust 1997, the EC requested consultations with 
the US in respect of a ban on imports of poultry and poultry products from the EC by the US 
Department of Agriculture's Food Safety Inspec tion Service, and any related measures. The EC 
contended that although the ban is allegedly on grounds of product safety, the ban does not indicate 
the grounds upon which EC poultry produc ts have suddenly become inelig ible for entry into the US 
market. The EC considered that the ban is inconsis tent with Articles I, III, X and XI of GATT 1994, 
Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and Annex C of the SPS Agre ement, or Article 2 and 5 of the TBT Agreement. 
8. WT/DS97 – United States – Countervailing Du ty Investigation of Imports of Salmon 
from Chile 
Complaint by Chile. On 5 August 1997, Chile request ed consultations with the US in respect of a 
countervailing duty investigation initiated by the US  Department of Commerce against imports of 
salmon from Chile. Chile contended that the decision to initiate an investigation was taken in the 
absence of sufficient eviden ce of injury, in violation of Article 11.2 and 11.3. Chile also contended a 
violation of Article 11.4, in relation to the re presentative status of producers of salmon fillets. 
9. WT/DS81 – Brazil – Certain Measures Affecting Trade and Investment in the 
Automotive Sector 
Complaint by the European Communi ties.  On 7 May 1997, the EC requ ested consultations with Brazil 
in respect of certain measures in the trade and i nvestment sector implemented by Brazil, including in 
particular, Law No. 9440 of 14 March 1997, Law No. 9449 of 14 March 1997, and Decree No. 1987 of 
20 August 1996.  The EC contended that these measures violate Ar ticles I:1 and III:4 of GATT 1994, 
Articles 3, 5 and 27.4 of the Subsidies Agreement, a nd Article 2 of the TRIMs Agreement.  The EC also 
claimed for nullification and impairment of bene fits under both GATT 1994 and the Subsidies 
Agreement.  See also WT/D S51, WT/DS52 and WT/DS65. 
10. WT/DS80 – Belgium – Measures Affecting Commercial Telephone Directory Services 
Complaint by the United States.  On 2 May 1997, the US requested consulta tions with Belgium in 
respect of certain measures of the Kingdom of Belgium governing the provision of commercial 
telephone directory services.  Thes e measures include the impositi on of conditions for obtaining a 
license to publish commercial dire ctories, and the regulation of the acts, policies, and practices of 
BELGACOM N.V. with respect to te lephone directory services.  The US  alleged violations of Articles WT/DS/OV/25 
Page 36  
 
 II, VI, VIII and XVII of GATS, as well as nullifica tion and impairment of bene fits accruing to it under 
the specific GATS commitments made by the EC on behalf of Belgium. 
11. WT/DS78 – United States – Safeguard Me asure Against Imports of Broom Corn 
Brooms 
Complaint by Colombia. On 28 April 1997, Colombia  requested consultations with the US in respect 
of US Presidential Proclamation 6961 of 28 Novemb er 1996, adopting a safeguard measure against 
imports of broom and corn brooms. Colombia conte nded that the adoption of this safeguard measure 
is inconsistent with the obligations of the US unde r Articles 2, 4, 5, 9 and 12 of the Agreement on 
Safeguards, Articles II, XIII and XIX of GATT 1994.  Colombia also claimed for nullification and 
impairment of benefits under GATT 1994. 
12. WT/DS71 – Canada – Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft 
Complaint by Brazil. On 10 March 1997, Brazil requested  consultations with Canada in respect of the 
same measures complained of in WT/DS70. However, the request wa s made pursuant to Article 7 of 
the Subsidies Agreement. In this request, Brazil c ontended that the measures are actionable subsidies 
within the meaning of Part III of the Subsidies Agreement, and cause adverse effects within the 
meaning of Article 5 of the Agreement. 
13. WT/DS66 – Japan – Measures Affecting Imports of Pork 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 15 Janua ry 1997, the EC requested consultations with 
Japan in respect of certain measures affecting impor ts of pork and its processed products imposed by 
Japan. The EC contended that these measures are in violation of Japan's obligations under Articles I, 
X:3 and XIII of the GATT 1994. The EC also contende d that these measures nullify or impair benefits 
accruing to it under the GATT 1994.  
14. WT/DS65 – Brazil – Certain Measures Affecting Trade and Investment in the 
Automotive Sector 
Complaint by the United States. On 10 January 1997, the US requested consultations with Brazil 
concerning more or less the same measures as in WT/DS52 above. However, this request also 
included measures adopted by Brazil subsequent to consultations held with the US pursuant to the 
request under WT/DS52, which include measures confe rring benefits to certain companies located in 
Japan, the Republic of Korea, and the EC. The US alleged violations under Articles I:1 and III:4 of 
GATT 1994, Article 2 of the TRIMs Agreement, and Articles 3 and 27.4 of the SCM Agreement. The 
United States also made a nullification and impairme nt of benefits claim under Article XXIII:1(b) of 
GATT 1994. 
J. YEAR
 1996 
1. WT/DS63 – United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Imports of Solid Urea from the 
Former German Democratic Republic 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 28 November 1996, the EC requested consultations 
with the US in respect of Anti-Dumping duties imposed on exports of solid urea from the former 
German Democratic Republic by the United States.  The EC contended that theses measures violate 
Articles 9 and 11 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page 37 
 
 
 2. WT/DS61 – United States – Import Prohibit ion of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products 
Complaint by the Philippines. On 25 October 1996, the Philippines requested consultations with the 
US in respect of a complaint by the Philippines re garding a ban on the importation of certain shrimp 
and shrimp products from the Philippines imposed by  the US under Section 609 of US Public Law 
101-62. Violations of Articles I, II, III, VIII, XI and XIII of GATT 1994 and Article 2 of the TBT 
Agreement are alleged. A nullification and impairme nt of benefits under GA TT 1994 is also alleged. 
(See WT/DS58). 
3. WT/DS53 – Mexico – Customs Valuation of Imports 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 27 Au gust 1996, the EC requested consultations with 
Mexico concerning the Mexican Customs Law. The EC  claimed that Mexico applies CIF value as the 
basis of customs valuation of imports originat ing in non-NAFTA countries, while it applies FOB 
value for imports originating in NAFTA countries. Vi olation of GATT Article XXIV:5(b) is alleged.  
4. WT/DS52 – Brazil – Certain Measures Affecting Trade and Investment in the 
Automotive Sector 
Complaint by the United States. On 9 August 1996, the US requested consultations with Brazil 
concerning the same measures as identified in Japan's  request in WT/DS51. Violations of the TRIMs 
Agreement Article 2, GATT Articles I:1 and III:4 as well as the Subsidies Agreement Articles 3 and 
27.4 are alleged. In addition, the United States also made a non-violation claim under GATT Article 
XXIII:1(b).  
5. WT/DS51 – Brazil – Certain Automotive Investment Measures 
Complaint by Japan. On 30 July 1996, Japan requested consultations with Brazil concerning certain 
automotive investment measures taken by the Brazilian government. Violations of the TRIMs 
Agreement Article 2, GATT Articles I:1, III:4 and XI :1 as well as the Subsidies Agreement Articles 3, 
27.2 and 27.4 are alleged. In addition, Japan  made a non-violation claim under GATT Article 
XXIII:1(b).  
6. WT/DS47 – Turkey – Restrictions on Imports of Textile and Clothing Products 
Complaint by Thailand. On 20 June 1996, Thailand requested consultations with Turkey concerning 
Turkey's imposition of quantitative restrictions on  imports of textile and clothing products from 
Thailand. Violations of GATT Articles I, II, XI and XIII as well as Article 2 of the Textiles Agreement are alleged. Earlier, Hong Kong (WT/DS29) and India (WT/DS34) separately requested consultations with Turkey on the same measure. 
7. WT/DS45 – Japan – Measures Affecting Distribution Services 
Complaint by the United States. On 13 June 1996 , the US requested consultations with Japan 
concerning Japan's measures affecting distribution services (not limited to the photographic film and paper sector) through the operation of the Large-Scale Retail Store Law, which regulates the floor space, business hours and holidays of supermarkets a nd department stores. Violations of the GATS 
Article III (Transparency) and Article XVI (Market Access) are alleged. The US also alleged that 
these measures nullify or impair benefits accruing to the US (a non-violation claim). The US 
requested further consultations with Japan on 20 September 1996, expanding the factual and legal 
basis of its claim. WT/DS/OV/25 
Page 38  
 
 8. WT/DS41 – Korea – Measures Concerning Inspection of Agricultural Products 
Complaint by the United States. On 24 May 1996, the US requested consultations with Korea 
concerning testing, inspection and other measures re quired for the importation of agricultural products 
into Korea. The US claimed that th ese measures restrict imports and appear to be inconsistent with the 
WTO Agreement. Violations of GATT Articles III and XI, SPS Articles 2, 5 and 8, TBT Articles 2, 5 
and 6, and Article 4 of the Agreement on Agricult ure are alleged. The US requested consultations 
with Korea on similar issues on 4 April 1995 (WT/DS3).  
9. WT/DS30 – Brazil – Countervailing Duties on Imports of Desiccated Coconut and 
Coconut Milk Powder from Sri Lanka 
Complaint by Sri Lanka. On 23 February 1996, Sri Lanka requested consultations with Brazil 
concerning Brazil's imposition of countervailing dut ies on Sri Lanka's export of desiccated coconut 
and coconut milk powder. Sri Lanka  alleged that those measures are inconsistent with GATT Articles 
I, II and VI and Article 13(a) of the Agriculture Agreement (the so-called peace clause). See WT/DS22.  
10. WT/DS29 – Turkey – Restrictions on Imports of Textile and Clothing Products 
Complaint by Hong Kong. On 12 February 1996, H ong Kong requested consultations with Turkey 
concerning Turkey's quantitative restrictions on impo rts of textile and clothing products. Hong Kong 
claimed that those measur es are in violation of GATT Articles XI  and XIII. The background to this 
dispute is a recently concluded customs union agreement between Turkey and the European 
Communities. Hong Kong claimed that GATT Artic le XXIV does not entitle Turkey to impose new 
quantitative restrictions in the present case.  
K. YEAR
 1995 
1. WT/DS16 – European Communities – Regime for the Importation, Sale and 
Distribution of Bananas 
Complaint by Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and the United States. On 28 September 1995, 
Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and the United Stat es requested consultations with the European 
Communities concerning the EC regime for the importa tion, sale and distribution of bananas. The EC 
measures are alleged to be inconsistent with Ar ticles I, II, III, X and XIII of GATT 1994, Articles 1 
and 3 of the Import Licensing Agreement, and Articles II, XVI and XVII of GATS.  
On 3 October 1995, St. Lucia requested to join the consultations. On 11 October 1995, Costa Rica 
requested to join the consultations. On 12 Oc tober 1995, Colombia and the Dominican Republic 
requested to join the consultations. On 13 Octobe r 1995, Venezuela and Nicaragua requested to join 
the consultations.  
2. WT/DS3 – Korea – Measures Concerning the Testing and Inspection of Agricultural 
Products 
Complaint by the United States. On 6 April 1995, the US requested consultations with Korea 
involving testing and inspection requirements with r espect to imports of agricultural products into 
Korea. The measures are alleged to be in violatio n of GATT Articles III or XI, Articles 2 and 5 of the 
Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measure s (SPS), TBT Articles 5 and 6 and Agriculture 
Article 4. (See WT/DS41).  WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page 39 
 
 
 II. PANELS ESTABLISHED BY DSB/REPORTS NOT YET CIRCULATED 
A. ORIGINAL PANELS  
1. 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  matchboxes from Pakistan pursuant to Decree 
No. 667/2003 of 18 November 2003, as well as any amen dments 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 establishment of a panel.  At its meeting 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 States reserved their third-party 
rights.   
2. 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  
• 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 Comm unities and the United States reserved their third 
party rights. On 31 March 2005, New Zealand reserve d 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. 
3. WT/DS322 – United States – Measures Relating to Zeroing and Sunset Reviews 
Complaint by Japan. On 24 November 2004, Japan re quested consultations with the United States 
concerning (1) the USDOC's "zeroing" practice in anti-dumping investigations, administrative 
reviews, sunset reviews, and also in assessing the final anti-dumping duty liability on entries upon 
liquidation; (2) the USDOC's "irrefutable presumpti on" in sunset reviews; and (3) the waiver WT/DS/OV/25 
Page 40  
 
 provisions of US law, which, in sunset reviews, oblige the USDOC, in certain situations, to find a 
likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dum ping without performing a substantive review.  
According to the request for consultations from Ja pan, the US violates its WTO obligations with 
respect to the following measures:  
• the Tariff Act of 1930, in particular, sections  731, 751, 752, 771(7), 771(35)(A), 771(35)(B) 
and 777A(d);  
• the Statement of Administrative Action that  accompanied the Uruguay Round Agreements 
Act;  
• the USDOC implementing regulations, 19 C.F.R. sec tion 351, in particular sections 351.218 
and 351.414;  
• the Import Administration Antidumping Manual, including the computer program(s) to which 
it refers; – the USDOC's Policy Bulletin 98.3 ("Sunset Policy Bulletin");  
• the methodology of the United States for determining dumping margins and material injury in 
anti dumping investigations;  
• the methodology of the United States for determining dumping margins in administrative 
reviews; and  
• the methodology of the United States, in sunset  reviews, for determining whether revocation 
of anti-dumping orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, and 
continuation or recurrence of material inju ry within a reasonably foreseeable time.  
Japan wishes to consult with th e United States not only on the above-mentioned measures "as such", 
but also on the applications of these measures in 16 specific instances.  
Japan considers that these US measures are inconsistent  with, inter alia, Articles 1, 2.1, 2.4, 2.4.2, 3, 
5.8, 6.1, 6.2, 9, 11, 18.3 and 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT; and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.  
On 3 December 2004, India requested to join the consultations. On 8 December 2004, Norway, 
Argentina, Chinese Taipei, the European Comm unities and Mexico requested to join the 
consultations.  
On 4 February 2005, Japan requested the establishm ent of a panel. At its meeting on 17 February 
2005, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 28 February 2005, the DSB 
established the panel. The European Communities,  Hong Kong, India, Korea and Mexico reserved 
their third party rights. On 2 Ma rch 2005, China reserved its third party rights. On 4 March 2005, 
Argentina reserved its third party rights. On 7 Ma rch 2005, Norway reserved its third party rights. On 
8 March 2005, Thailand reserved its  third party rights. On 10 March 2005, New Zealand reserved its 
third party rights. On 7 April 2005, Japan requested the Director General to compose the panel. On 15 
April 2005, the Director-General composed the panel.  
On 15 November 2005, the Panel informed the DSB that it would not be possible for the Panel to 
complete its work within six months of the date of composition, inter alia,  due to the complexity of 
the issues and other unavoidable postponements in the timetable for the work of the Panel, and 
that the Panel hoped to complete its work by March 2006.  WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page 41 
 
 
 4. WT/DS321 – Canada – Continued Suspension of Obligations in the EC – Hormones 
Dispute 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 8 No vember 2004, the European Communities filed a 
request for consultations with Canada asserting th at Canada should have removed its retaliatory 
measures since the EC has removed the measures found to be WTO-inconsistent in the EC – 
Hormones case.  
The issues which the EC intends to raise in the consultations include, but are not limited to:  
• the failure by Canada to remove the retaliato ry measures despite the EC's removal of the 
WTO-inconsistent measures:  
• the unilateral determinations by Canada that  the new EC legislation is a continued WTO 
violation; and  
• the failure of Canada to follow DSU Article 21.5 dispute settlement procedures to adjudicate 
the matter.  
The EC considers that the continued use by Canada of retaliatory measures in this case, in the current 
circumstances, are violations of Articles I and II of GATT 1994, and Articles 21.5, 22.8, 23.1 and 
23.2 (a) and (c) of the DSU.  
On 19 November 2004, Australia, Mexico and the Unite d States requested to join the consultations. 
On 14 December 2004, Canada informed the DSB that  it had accepted the request of the United States 
to join the consultations.  
On 13 January 2005, the European Communities re quested the establishment of a panel. At its 
meeting on 25 January 2005, the DSB deferred the est ablishment of a panel. At its meeting on 17 
February 2005, the DSB established a panel. Aust ralia, China, Mexico, Chinese Taipei and the United 
States reserved their third-party rights. On 23 Februa ry 2005, Norway reserved its third party rights. 
On 25 February 2005, Brazil reserved its third pa rty rights. On 28 February 2005, India and New 
Zealand reserved their third party rights.  
On 13 January 2005, the European Communities re quested the establishment of a panel. At its 
meeting on 25 January 2005, the DSB deferred the est ablishment of a panel. At its meeting on 17 
February 2005, the DSB established a panel. Aust ralia, Canada, China, Mexico and Chinese Taipei 
reserved their third party rights. On 23 February 20 05, Norway reserved its third party rights. On 25 
February 2005, Brazil reserved its third party ri ghts. On 28 February 2005, India and New Zealand 
reserved their third party rights. On 27 May 2005, the European Co mmunities requested the Director 
General to compose the panel. On 6 June 2005, the Director-General composed the panel. The first 
substantive meeting of the Panel with the par ties took place on 12-15 September 2005, which was 
open for observation by the public. 
5. WT/DS320 – United States – Continued Suspension of Obligations in the EC – 
Hormones Dispute 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 8 No vember 2004, the European Communities filed a 
request for consultations with the United States a sserting that the United States should have removed 
its retaliatory measures since the EC has removed th e measures found to be WTO-inconsistent in the 
EC – Hormones case.  WT/DS/OV/25 
Page 42  
 
 The issues which the EC intends to raise in the consultations include, but are not limited to:  
• the failure by the United States to remove the re taliatory measures despite the EC's removal of 
the WTO-inconsistent measures:  
• the unilateral determinations by the United Stat es that the new EC legislation is a continued 
WTO violation; and  
• the failure of the United States to follow DSU Article 21.5 dispute settlement procedures to 
adjudicate the matter.  
The EC considers that the continued use by the Un ited States and of retaliatory measures in this case, 
in the current circumstances, are violations of Ar ticles I and II of GATT 1994, and Articles 21.5, 22.8, 
23.1 and 23.2 (a) and (c) of the DSU.  
On 17 November 2004, Canada requested to join the consultations. On 19 November 2004, Australia 
and Mexico requested to join the consultations. On  16 December 2004, the United States informed the 
DSB that it had accepted the request of Canada to join the consultations.  
On 13 January 2005, the European Communities re quested the establishment of a panel. At its 
meeting on 25 January 2005, the DSB deferred the est ablishment of a panel. At its meeting on 17 
February 2005, the DSB established a panel. Aust ralia, Canada, China, Mexico and Chinese Taipei 
reserved their third party rights. On 23 February 20 05, Norway reserved its third party rights. On 25 
February 2005, Brazil reserved its third party ri ghts. On 28 February 2005, India and New Zealand 
reserved their third party rights. On 27 May 2005, the European Co mmunities requested the Director 
General to compose the panel. On 6 June 2005, the Director-General composed the panel. The first 
substantive meeting of the Panel with the par ties took place on 12-15 September 2005, which was 
open for observation by the public.  
6. WT/DS317 – United States – Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft 
Complaint by the European Comm unities. On 6 October 2004, the European Communities requested 
consultations with the United States concerning pr ohibited and actionable subsidies provided to US 
producers of large civil aircraft (LCA) and in par ticular the BOEING company, as well as legislation, 
regulations, statutory instruments and amendments thereto providing such subsidies, grants, and any 
other assistance to the US producers (US LCA industry).  
According to the request for consultations from the European Communities, the measures cited in its 
complaint, including certain legislation, regulati ons, statutory instruments and amendments thereto 
provide prohibited and actionable s ubsidies, grants, and other assistance to US producers of large civil 
aircraft, particularly the Boeing company, contrary to  certain provisions of Articles 3.1(a) and (b), 3.2, 
5(a) and (c), and 6.3(a), (b) and (c) of th e SCM Agreement and Article III:4 of GATT 1994.  
The measures cited in the EC complaint include sp ecified state and local subsidies for the production 
of the Boeing 7E7; specified NASA research and de velopment subsidies; specified Department of 
Defense research and development subsidies; specified National Institute of Standards and 
Technology subsidies; FSC/ETI subsidies; res earch and experimentation tax credits; NASA 
procurement contracts, and other subsidies.  
The EC notes that the cited US, state, and local statutes, regulations, and administrative procedures 
are inconsistent with the SCM and GATT 1994 provis ions referred to above, as such and as applied.   WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page 43 
 
 
 The EC further notes that the use of these measure s causes adverse effects (i.e. serious prejudice or a 
threat of serious prejudice) to the interests of the EC and material injury or threat of material injury to 
the EC large civil aircraft industry in a manner that violates US obligations under provisions of Articles 5 and 6 of the SCM Agreement.  
On 31 May 2005, the European Communities requested  the establishment of a panel. At its meeting 
on 13 June 2005, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 20 July 2005, the 
DSB established a panel.  Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Japan and Korea reserved their third-party 
rights. 
At its 23 September 2005 meeting, the DSB initiate d the procedures provided in Annex V of the 
SCM Agreement. 
On 7 October 2005, the European Communities request ed the Director-General to compose the panel. 
On 17 October 2005, Deputey Director Alejandro Jara, acting in place of the Director-General composed the panel.  
7. WT/DS316 – European Communities and Certain Member States – Measures Affecting 
Trade in Large Civil Aircraft 
Complaint by the United States. On 6 October 2004,  the United States requested consultations with 
the Governments of Germany, France, the Unite d Kingdom, and Spain (the "member States"), and 
with the European Communities ("EC") concerning m easures affecting trade in large civil aircraft.  
According to the request for consultations from the United States, measures by the EC and the 
member States provide subsidies that are inc onsistent with their obligations under the SCM 
Agreement and GATT 1994. The measures include: the provision of financing for design and 
development to Airbus companies ("launch aid"); the provision of grants and government-provided 
goods and services to develop, expand, and upgrade Airbus manufacturing sites for the development 
and production of the Airbus A380; the provision of  loans on preferential terms; the assumption and 
forgiveness of debt resulting from launch and other large civil aircraft production and development 
financing; the provision of equity infusions and grants; the provision of research and development 
loans and grants in support of large civil aircraft development, directly for the benefit of Airbus, and 
any other measures involving a financial contributi on to the Airbus companies. The subsidies in 
question include those relating to the entire family of Airbus products (A300 through the A380)  
The United States further notes that certain launch aid provided for the A340 and A380 appear to be 
illegal export subsidies in contravention of certain provisions of Article 3 of the SCM Agreement.  
The United States is further concerned that the measur es appear to be causing adverse effects to US in 
a manner contrary to the provisions of Articles 5 and 6 of the SCM Agreement.  
The United States is also concerned that the measures appear to be inconsistent with Article XVI:1 of 
GATT 1994.  
Finally, the United States is concerned that th e measures have caused and continue to cause 
nullification or impairment of benefits to th e United States under GATT 1994 within the meaning of 
Article XXIII:1.  
On 31 May 2005, the United States requested the estab lishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 13 June 
2005, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 20 July 2005, the DSB WT/DS/OV/25 
Page 44  
 
 established a panel.  Australia, Br azil, Canada, China, Japan and Korea reserved their third-party 
rights. 
At its 23 September 2005 meeting, the DSB initiate d the procedures provided in Annex V of the 
SCM Agreement. 
On 7 October 2005, the United States requested the Di rector-General to compose the panel. On 17 
October 2005, Deputy Director Alejandro Jara, acting in place of the Director-General who recused 
himself on this matter, composed the panel.   
8. WT/DS315 – European Communities – Selected Customs Matters 
Complaint by the United States. On 21 September 2004, the United States requested consultations 
with the European Communities c oncerning the Communities' administration of laws and regulations 
pertaining to the classification and valuation of products for customs purposes and its failure to 
institute tribunals or procedures for the prompt review and correction of administrative action on 
customs matters.  
According to the request for consultations from th e United States, the non uniform administration by 
the European Communities of laws, regulations, judicial decisions and administrative rulings 
pertaining to the classification and valuation of pr oducts for customs purposes  and to requirements, 
restrictions or prohibitions on im ports results in disparate administration among the member States of 
these customs measures in a number of respects, including differences in the classification and 
valuation of goods.  
Furthermore, the United States claims that EC law provides that EC member States are responsible for 
the implementation of appeals procedures. It is clai med, therefore, that appeals procedures vary from 
member State to member State, and the ability to obt ain review of a customs decision by a tribunal of 
the European Communities is possible only after an importer or other interested party has exhausted 
review by national administrative and/or judicial tribunals.  
The United States considers the foregoing manner of administering the laws, regulations and related 
measures and the foregoing arrangement to be inc onsistent with the EC's obligations under Articles 
X:1, X:3(a) and (b) of GATT 1994.  
On 6 October 2004, Australia, Japan and Brazil requ ested to join the consultations. On 7 October 
2004, Argentina, Chinese Taipei and India requested to join the consultati ons. On 13 January 2005, 
the United States requested the establishment of a pa nel. At its meeting on 25 January 2005, the DSB 
deferred the establishment of a panel. At its m eeting on 21 March 2005, the DSB established the 
panel. Australia, Brazil, China and Chinese Taipei reserved their third party rights. On 22 March 
2005, Hong Kong reserved its third party rights. On 24 Ma rch 2005, Korea reserved its third party 
rights. On 30 March 2005, Japan reserved its third party rights.  On 31 March 2005, Argentina and 
India reserved their third party rights. 
On 17 May 2005, the United States requested the Di rector-General to compose the panel. On 27 May 
2005, the Director-General composed the panel.  
On 24 November 2005, the Chairman of the Panel in formed the DSB that it would not be possible for 
the Panel to complete its work in six months as th e Panel was still considering the legal and factual 
matters raised in this dispute, and that the Pane l hoped to complete its work by the end of March 
2006.   WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page 45 
 
 
 9. WT/DS291, WT/DS292, WT/DS293 – European  Communities – Measures Affecting the 
Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products 
Complaints by the United States (WT/DS291), Cana da (WT/DS292) and Argentina (WT/DS293). On 
13 May 2003, the United States and Canada requested  consultations with the EC concerning certain 
measures taken by the EC and its member States af fecting imports of agricultural and food imports 
from the United States and Canada. Regarding EC-lev el measures, the US and Canada asserted that 
the moratorium applied by the EC since Octobe r 1998 on the approval of biotech products has 
restricted imports of agricultural and food prod ucts from the US and Canada. Regarding member 
State-level measures, the US and Canada asserted that a number of EC member States maintain national marketing and import bans on biotech produc ts even though those products have already 
been approved by the EC for import and marketing in the EC. On 14 May 2003, Argentina requested 
consultations with the EC on the same matter.  
According to the US, the measures at issue appear to be inconsistent with the EC's obligations under:  
• Articles 2, 5, 7 and 8, and Annexes B and C of the SPS Agreement; 
• Articles I, III, X and XI of the GATT 1994;  
• Article 4 of the Agriculture Agreement; and (d) Articles 2 and 5 of the TBT Agreement.  
According to Canada, the measures at issue appear to be inconsistent with the EC's obligations under:  
• Articles 2.2, 2.3, 5.1, 5.5, 5.6, 7 and 8,  and Annexes B and C of the SPS Agreement;  
• Articles 2.1, 2.2, 2.8, 5.1 and 5.2 of the TBT Agreement;  
• Articles I:1, III:4, X:1 and XI:1 of the GATT 1994; and  
• Article 4.2 of the Agriculture Agreement.  
Canada also considered that the measures at issue nu llify or impair benefits accruing to Canada in the 
sense of Article XXIII:1(b) of the GATT 1994.  
According to Argentina, the measur es at issue appear to be inconsis tent with the EC's obligations 
under:  
• Articles 2, 5, 7, 8 and 10, and Annexes B and C of the SPS Agreement; 
• Article 4 of the Agriculture Agreement;  
• Articles I, III, X and XI of the GATT 1994; and  
• Articles 2, 5 and 12 of the TBT Agreement.  
In dispute WT/DS291, Australia, Argentina, Braz il, Canada, Chile, Colombia, India, Mexico, New 
Zealand and Peru requested to join the consulta tions, The EC informed the DSB that they had 
accepted the requests of Australia, Argentina, Braz il, Canada, Chile, Colombia, India, Mexico, New 
Zealand and Peru to join the consultations.  WT/DS/OV/25 
Page 46  
 
 In dispute WT/DS292, Australia, Argentina, Brazi l, India, Mexico, New Zealand and the United 
States requested to join the consultations. The EC informed the DSB that they had accepted the 
requests of Australia, Argentina, Brazil, India, Me xico, New Zealand and the United States to join the 
consultations.  
In dispute WT/DS293, Australia, Brazil, Canada, In dia, Mexico, New Zealand and the United States 
requested to join the consultati ons. The EC informed the DSB that  they had accepted the requests of 
Australia, Brazil, Canada, India, Mexico, New Zeala nd and the United States to join the consultations.  
On 7 August 2003, the United States, Canada and Ar gentina each requested the establishment of a 
panel. At its meeting on 18 August 2003, the DSB de ferred the establishment of the panels. Further to 
second requests to establish a panel from the US, Cana da and Argentina, the DSB established a single 
panel at its meeting on 29 August 2003.  
On 23 February 2004, the United States, Canada a nd Argentina requested the Director General to 
compose the panel. On 4 March 2004, the Director-Gen eral composed the panel. Argentina (in respect 
of the United States' and Canada's complaints), Au stralia, Brazil, Canada (in respect of the United 
States' and Argentina's complaints), Chile, Chin a, Colombia, El Salvador, Honduras, Mexico, New 
Zealand, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, Chinese Taip ei, Thailand, Uruguay and the United States (in 
respect of Canada's and Argentina's compla ints) reserved their third-party rights.  
On 12 July 2004, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that it would not be able to complete 
its work in six months, due, inter alia, to the pa rties' common request for additional time to prepare 
their rebuttals. On 18 August 2004, the Chairman of  the Panel informed the DSB that the Panel 
estimated that it would issue its final report to the parties by the end of Marc h 2005, and that the delay 
was due to the parties' common request for addition al time to prepare their rebuttals as well as the 
Panel's decision to seek scientific and technical expe rt advice pursuant to Article 11 of the Agreement 
on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures and Arti cle 13 of the DSU. On 2 November 2004, the 
Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that
 as a result of the time taken to identify and select 
experts and, more importantly, in view of a joint request by all four parties that they be granted 
additional time to prepare their furt her submissions to the Panel, it would not be possible for the Panel 
to issue its final report to the parties by the end of  March 2005, and that the Panel estimated that it 
would issue its final report to the parties by the end of June 2005 . On 13 June 2005, the Panel 
informed the DSB that the Panel est imated that it would issue its fina l report to the parties by the end 
of October 2005. On 11 August 2005, the Panel estimat ed that it would issue its final report to the 
parties by the end of December 2005.      
10. WT/DS287 – Australia – Quarantine Regime for Imports 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 3 Ap ril 2003, the EC requested consultations with 
Australia regarding the Australian quarantine regi me for imports, both as such and as applied to 
certain specific cases. According to the EC, the Au stralian quarantine regime for imports appears to 
be governed both by legislation as well as by the exercise of discretion granted to a Director of 
Quarantine and by administrative guidance issu ed on the exercise of that discretion.  
As regards the quarantine regime as such, the EC clai ms that the effect of this regime appears to be 
that the import of products is a priori prohib ited, although there is no risk assessment. Risk 
assessments appear to be commenced, if at all, onl y once the import of a product has been specifically 
requested. In some cases, no risk assessment has be en commenced despite such request. In other cases 
it has been commenced but not completed. As re gards specific cases, the EC claims that:   WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page 47 
 
 
 • Australia permits the import of deboned pigm eat from Denmark for processing in Australia 
but refuses the import of processed deboned pigmeat from Denmark. It also claims that the processing requirements imposed in Australia may be more trade-restrictive than necessary in 
the circumstances to protect Australia from PRRS (Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory 
Syndrome). It also appears that requests have  been made for access to Australia for processed 
pigmeat or deboned pigmeat for processing from other EU Member States which have been 
refused.  
• Australia permits the import of poultry meat wh ich has been cooked to high temperature and 
for long periods to prevent the entry of IBD (inf ectious bursal disease). The EC claims that it 
appears that IBD may already be present in the Australian poultry flock and that no efforts are 
being made to eradicate it. The EC also claims that the processing requirements imposed in 
Australia may be more trade-restrictive th an necessary in the circumstances to protect 
Australia from IBD.  
The EC considers that the measures referred to abov e may be contrary to the SPS Agreement, and in 
particular, although not limited to, Articles 2.2, 2.3, 3.3, 4.1, 5.1, 5.6 and, if applicable, 5.7, 8 and 
Annex C. On 16 April 2003, Chile and the Philippines requested to join the consultations. On 22 April 
2003, India and Canada requested to join the cons ultations. Australia informed the DSB that it had 
accepted the requests of Canada, Chile, India and the Philippines to join the consultations.  
On 29 August 2003, the European Communities requested  the establishment of a panel. At its meeting 
on 2 October 2003, the DSB deferred the establishmen t of a panel. On 14 October 2003, the EC 
submitted a revised request for the establishment of a panel to the DSB. The DSB established a panel 
at its meeting on 7 November 2003. Canada, Chile, China, India, Ph ilippines, Thailand and the United 
States reserved their third-party rights.  
11. WT/DS281 – United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Cement from Mexico 
Complaint by Mexico. On 3 February 2003, Mexico requested consultations with the US concerning 
several antidumping measures imposed by the US on imports of Gray Portland cement and cement 
clinker from Mexico, including:  
• the final determinations in several administrative and sunset reviews;  
• the US authorities' determination regarding th e continuation of the antidumping orders; and  
• the US authorities' rejection of a request by Mexican producers to initiate an administrative 
review based on changed circumstances as well as.  
In addition to the above measures, Mexico's re quest included a number of  laws, regulations and 
administrative practices (such as "zeroing") used by  the US authorities in the above determinations. 
Mexico considered that the above antidumping measures are incompatible with Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 
8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 18 of the Antidumping Agreement, Articles III, VI and X of the GATT 1994 and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.  
On 29 July 2003, Mexico requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 18 August 2003, 
the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Fu rther to a second request to establish a panel by 
Mexico, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 29 August 2003. China, the EC, Japan and 
Chinese Taipei reserved their third-party rights. On  5 September 2003, Canada reserved its third-party 
rights.  WT/DS/OV/25 
Page 48  
 
 On 24 August 2004, Mexico requested the Director General to compose the panel. On 3 September 
2004, the Director-General composed the panel.  
On 1 March 2005, the Panel informed the DSB that It  would not be possible for the Panel to complete 
its work within six months of the date of composition, inter alia  due to the large number of claims 
involved, the complexity of the issues and certain postponements in the Panel's timetable, and that the 
Panel hoped to complete its work by the end of October 2005. On 3 October 2005, the Panel informed 
the DBS that due to its continued consideration of th e issues in this dispute, it would not be possible 
for the Panel to complete its work by the end of Oc tober, and that the Panel expected to complete its 
work in January 2006. 
12. WT/DS280 – United States – Countervailing Duties on Steel Plate from Mexico 
Complaint by Mexico. On 21 January 2003, Mexico requested consultations with the US regarding 
the final determination in an administrative re view of countervailing duties imposed by the US 
authorities on imports of carbon steel plates in sheets from Mexico (C-201-810) as well as the basis on which they reached this determination and led to  the imposition of countervailing duties on imports 
of the said products.  
Mexico claims that the administrative review th at led to the imposition of countervailing duties of 
11.6% ad valorem by using the "same person" met hodology is incompatible with Articles 10, 14, 19 
and 21 of the SCM Agreement. In particular, Mexi co claims that the US Department of Commerce 
did not make a determination of the existence of a benefit as required in Article 1.1(b) of the SCM 
Agreement.  
On 4 August 2003, Mexico requested the establishmen t of a panel. At its meeting on 18 August 2003, 
the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Fu rther to a second request to establish a panel by 
Mexico, the DSB established a panel at its mee ting on 29 August 2003. China, the EC and Chinese 
Taipei reserved their third-party rights. On 5 Sept ember 2003, Canada reserved its third-party rights.  
13. WT/DS270 – Australia – Certain Measures Aff ecting the Importation of Fresh Fruit and 
Vegetables 
Complaint by the Philippines. On 18 October 200 2, the Philippines requested consultations with 
Australia on certain measures affecting the importati on into Australia of fresh fruit and vegetables, 
including bananas, which include, but are not limited to:  
• Section 64 of Quarantine Proclamation 1998 pr omulgated under the Quarantine Act 1908;  
• regulations, requirements and procedures issued pursuant thereto;  
• amendments to any of the foregoing; and  
• their application.  
The Philippines considered that these measures are in consistent with the obligations of Australia 
under the GATT 1994, the SPS Agreement and the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures. The 
relevant provisions of these agre ements include, but are not limited to Articles XI and XIII of the 
GATT 1994; Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 10 of the SPS Agreement; and Articles 1 and 3 of the 
Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures.   WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page 49 
 
 
 On 1 November 2002, the EC and Thailand requested to join the consultations. On 7 November 2002, 
Australia informed the DSB that it had accepted th e request of the EC and Thailand to join the 
consultations.  
On 7 July 2003, the Philippines re quested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 21 July 
2003, 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 29 August 2003. China, the EC, 
Ecuador, India, Thailand and the US reserved thei r third-party rights. On 4 September 2003, Chile 
reserved its third-party rights.  
14. WT/DS260 – European Communities – Provisional Safeguard Measures on Imports of 
Certain Steel Products 
Complaint by the United States. On 30 May 2002, the US requested consultations with the EC with 
regard to the provisional safeguard  measures imposed by the EC on im ports of certain steel products, 
pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 560/2002 of 27 March 2002 (OJ L 85/1, 28 March 
2002) as well as any amendments thereto or exte nsions thereof, and any related measures. 
The US contended that these measures appear to be inconsistent with the EC's obligations under the 
provisions of GATT 1994 and of the Ag reement on Safeguards, in particular, Articles 2.1, 2.2, 3, 4.1, 
4.2, 6 and 12.1 of the Agreement on Safegua rds and Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994. 
On 7 June 2002, Japan requested to join the consultations.  On 19 August 2002, the US requested the establishment of  a panel. In particular the US claimed that 
the EC safeguard measures are inconsistent with th e provisions listed in the request for consultations. 
In addition, the US claimed that Article 12.4 of the Safeguards Agreement was also violated. 
At its meeting on 30 August 2002, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 
16 September 2002, the DSB established a panel. Egypt , Japan and Korea reserved their third party 
rights. On 23 September 2002, Turkey reserved its third party rights.  
15. WT/DS214 – United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Steel Wire 
Rod and Circular Welded Quality Line Pipe 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 30 November 2000, the EC requested consultations 
with the US on US safeguard legislation and its application in two cases concerning the definitive 
safeguard measures imposed by the US on imports of certain steel wire rod ("wire rod") and certain circular welded carbon quality line pipe ("line pipe "). In particular, the EC considered as follows:  
• Sections 201 and 202 of the Trade Act of  1974 contain provisions relating to the 
determination of a causal link between increased  imports and injury or threat thereof which 
prevented the US from respecting Articles 4 and 5 of the Safeguards Agreement.  
• Section 311 of the NAFTA Implementation Ac t contains provisions concerning imports 
originating in NAFTA countries which do not r espect the requirement of parallelism between 
the imported products subject to the investiga tion and the imported products subject to the 
safeguard measure, contrary to Articles 2,  4 and 5 of the Safeguards Agreement.  
• These provisions are in breach of the Most-Favoured-Nation principle under Article I of the 
GATT 1994.  WT/DS/OV/25 
Page 50  
 
 According to the EC, these violations are confirmed by the application of the aforesaid US provisions 
in two specific cases wher e the US imposed definitive safeguard measures, (1) in the form of a tariff 
rate quota on imports of wire rod effective as of 1 March 2000; and (2) in the form of an increase in 
duty on imports of line pipe effective as of 1 March 2000. In the EC's view, in both the above 
mentioned cases the US measures are in breach of th e US obligations under the provisions of GATT 
1994 and of the Safeguards Agreement, in particular , but not necessarily exclusively, of: Article 2 
Safeguards Agreement; Articles 3.1 and 3.2 Safegua rds Agreement; Articles 4.1 and 4.2 Safeguards 
Agreement; Article 5.1 Safeguards Agreement; Article  8.1 Safeguards Agreement; Articles 12.2, 12.3 
and 12.11 Safeguards Agreement; Article I:1 of GATT 1994; Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994. 
Further to the request of the EC, the DSB established a panel at its meeting of 10 September 2001. 
Argentina, Canada, Japan, Korea and Mexico reserve d their third-party rights. The Panel has not yet 
been composed.  
16. WT/DS195 – Philippines – Measures Affecting Trade and Investment in the Motor 
Vehicle Industry 
Complaint by the United States. On 23 May 2000, th e US requested consultations with the Philippines 
in respect of certain measures in the Philippin es' Motor Vehicle Development Program ("MVDP"), 
including the Car Development Program, the Co mmercial Vehicle Development Program, and the 
Motorcycle Development Program. The United States asserted that:  
• the MVDP provided that motor vehicle manufact urers located in the Philippines who meet 
certain requirements are entitled to import parts, components and finished vehicles at a preferential tariff rate;  
• foreign manufacturers' import licenses for parts, components and finished vehicles are 
conditioned on compliance with these requireme nts. Among the requirements referred to by 
the United States are the requirement that ma nufacturers use parts and components produced 
in the Philippines and that they earn a percenta ge of the foreign exchange needed to import 
those parts and components by exporting finished vehicles; and  
• The United States considered that these measures ar e inconsistent with the obligations of the 
Philippines under Articles III:4, III:5 and XI:1 of the GATT 1994, Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the TRIMS Agreement, and Article 3.1(b) of the SCM Agreement.  
On 12 October 2000, the US requested the establishm ent of a panel. At its meeting on 23 October 
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 me eting of 17 November 2000. India and Japan reserved 
their third party rights. This panel has not yet been composed.  
17. WT/DS188 – Nicaragua – Measures Affectin g Imports from Honduras and Colombia 
Complaint by Colombia. On 17 January 2000, Colomb ia requested consultations with Nicaragua in 
respect of Nicaragua's Law 325 of 1999, which pr ovides for the imposition of charges on goods and 
services from Honduras and Colombia, as well as regulatory Decree 129-99. Colombia claimed that 
these measures are inconsistent, inter alia, with Ar ticles I and II of GATT 1994. Further to Colombia's 
request, the DSB established a panel at its mee ting of 18 May 2000. Canada, Costa Rica, the EC, 
Honduras and the US reserved their third-party righ ts. This panel has not yet been composed.   WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page 51 
 
 
 18. WT/DS164 – Argentina – Measures Affecting Imports of Footwear 
Complaint by the United States. On 1 March 1999, th e US requested consultations with Argentina in 
respect of certain measures implemented by Argentina affecting imports of footwear. The US contended that:  
• in November 1998, Argentina adopted Resolution 1506 modifying Resolution 987 of 10 
September 1997, which had established safeguard  duties on imports of footwear from non-
MERCOSUR countries. Resolution 1506 allege dly imposes a tariff-rate quota (TRQ) on such 
footwear imports in addition to the safegua rd duties previously imposed, postpones any 
liberalization of the original safeguard duty  until 30 November 1999, and liberalizes the TRQ 
only once during the life of the measure;  
• Argentina has not notified this measure to the Committee on Safeguards; and  
• the United States alleged violations of Artic les 5.1, 7.4 and 12 of the Agreement on 
Safeguards.  
Further to the request of the United States, the DSB established a panel at its meeting of 26 July 1999. 
The panel has not yet been composed. See also complaint by Indonesia (WT/DS123) and complaint 
by the EC (WT/DS121).  
B. ACTIVE COMPLIANCE PANELS  
1. 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 
WTO Agreements, on 19 May 2005 Canada requested the DSB of the establishment of a panel under 
Article 21.5 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. 
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 Chai rman to the 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 the Panel to  complete its work in 90 days in light of the 
withdrawal of the Chairman of the Panel and c onsequent need to appoint a new Chairman, and 
scheduling conflicts, and that the Panel expected  to complete its work in February 2006.  WT/DS/OV/25 
Page 52  
 
 III. REPORTS CIRCULATED BUT NOT YET ADOPTED BY THE DSB 
A. O
RIGINAL PANEL REPORTS  
1. WT/DS308 – Mexico – Tax Measures on Soft Drinks and Other Beverages 
Complaint by the United States. On 16 March 2004, the United States requested consultations with 
Mexico concerning certain tax measures imposed by Me xico on soft drinks and other beverages that 
use any sweetener other than cane sugar.  
The tax measures concerned include: (i) a 20 percent tax on soft drinks and other beverages that use 
any sweetener other than cane sugar ("beverage tax" ), which is not applied to beverages that use cane 
sugar; and (ii) a 20 percent tax on the commissioni ng, mediation, agency, representation, brokerage, 
consignment and distribution of soft drinks and ot her beverages that use any sweetener other than 
cane sugar ("distribution tax").  
The US considers that these taxe s are inconsistent with Article III of GATT 1994, in particular, 
Article III:2, first and second sentences, and Article III:4 thereof.  
On 26 March 2004, Canada requested to join the consultations. On 14 May 2004, Mexico informed 
the DSB that Mexico had accepted the requested  of Canada to join the consultations.  
On 10 June 2004, the United Stated requested the es tablishment of a panel. At its meeting on 22 June 
2004, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish a panel 
by the United States, the DSB established a panel at  its meeting on 6 July 2004. Canada, China, the 
European Communities, Japan and Pakistan reserve d their third-party right s. On 15 July 2004, 
Guatemala reserved its third-party right. On 20 Au gust 2004, Pakistan informed the DSB that it did 
not want to participate as a third- party in the panel proceedings.  
On 18 August 2004, the Panel was composed. On 1 February 2005, the Chairman of the Panel 
informed the DSB that it expected to complete its work by the end of May 2005, as envisaged in the 
timetable adopted after consultations with the par ties. On 4 May 2005, the Chairman of the Panel 
informed the DSB that it expected to complete its  work in August 2005, and that this date took 
account of the time needed to translate the interim re port into Spanish prior to its issuance, as agreed 
with the parties.  
On 7 October 2005, the Report of the Panel was circulated to Members. The Panel found:  
• The soft drink tax and the distribution ta x, as imposed on imported sweeteners and on 
imported soft drinks and syrups, are incons istent with Article III:2 of GATT 1994.  
• The soft drink tax, the distribution tax and the bookkeeping requirements, as imposed on 
imported sweeteners, are inconsistent  with Article III:4 of GATT 1994.  
• The measures are not justified under Article XX(d) of GATT 1994. 
2. WT/DS294 – United States – Laws, Regulations and Methodology for Calculating 
Dumping Margins (Zeroing) 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 12 June 2003, the European Communities requested 
consultations with the United States concerning a methodology used by the US, among others, in the 
calculation of dumping margins, known as "zeroing". The "zeroing" methodology, generally  WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page 53 
 
 
 speaking, involves treating specific price comparisons which do not show dumping as zero values in 
the calculation of a weighted average dumping margin.  
The request concerns specific provisions of th e US Tariff Act of 1930 and the Department of 
Commerce implementing regulation as well as US Department of Commerce methodology and its 
determinations in specific cases involvi ng products imported from the EC.  
The EC has indicated specific aspects of the zeroing methodology that it will raise in the 
consultations, including the way in which it is app lied in calculating dumping margins, its impact on 
determinations of injury, its impact in cases which would otherwise be de minimis, and the level of 
the dumping margins in 21 specific US anti-dumping cases.  
The EC has attached to its request details of those specific cases, alleging that in each of them the US 
used zeroing methodology. Most of the products in th ese cases were steel. The EC  asserts that in each 
case the dumping margin without zeroing would have been  lower, de minimis or negative. In the EC's 
view, the Act, regulation, methodology and these speci fic determinations appear  to be inconsistent 
with the United States' obligations under the following WTO provisions:  
• Articles 1, 2.4, 3, 5.8, 9.3, 9.5, 11, 18.3 and 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement;  
• Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT 1994;  
• Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.  
On 27 June 2003, India and Korea requested to join  the consultations. On 30 June 2003, Japan and 
Mexico requested to join the consultations.  
On 8 September 2003, the European Communities re quested further consultations with the United 
States. The EC wished to add ten more cases to the list of specific cases.  
The EC indicated specifi c aspects of the zeroing methodology th at it will raise in the additional 
consultations, including the way in which it is app lied in calculating dumping margins, its impact on 
determinations of injury, its impact in cases which would otherwise be de minimis, and the level of 
the dumping margins in specific US anti-dumping cases.  
In the EC's view, these additional specific determina tions appear to be inconsistent with the US 
obligations under the same WTO provisions mentioned above.  
On 25 September 2003, Mexico requested to join the consultations.  On 5 February 2004, the EC requested the establis hment of a panel. On 16 February 2004, the EC 
submitted a revised request for the establishment of a panel. At its meeti ng on 17 February 2004, the 
DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 19 March 2004, the DSB established a 
panel. Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Norway and Chinese Taipei reserved 
their third-party rights. On 23 Ma rch 2004, Hong Kong reserved its third-party right. On 30 March 
2004, Turkey reserved its third-party right. On  27 October 2004, the Panel was composed. 
On 22 March 2005, the Chairman of the Panel inform ed the DSB that it would not be possible for the 
Panel to complete its work in six months in light of the schedule which had been agreed after 
consultations with the parties, and that the Panel ex pected to complete its work in July 2005. On 1 
July 2005, the Panel informed the DSB that due to its continued consideration of the issues in this WT/DS/OV/25 
Page 54  
 
 dispute, it would not be possible for the Panel to co mplete its work by the end of July, and that the 
Panel expected to complete its work in September 2005. 
On 31 October 2005, the Panel Report was circulated to Members. In its Report: 
• The Panel unanimously upheld the claims of th e European Communities as they relate to the 
specific determinations of dumping made by the United States Department of Commerce in 
the 15 original investigations at issue.  The Panel also unanimously upheld the claims of the 
European Communities in respect of what was described by the Panel as the United States 
"methodology" of zeroing in original investigations.  In doing so, the Panel found that the United States "methodology" of zeroing was a "norm" capable of being challenged in WTO dispute settlement proceedings. 
• The Panel unanimously rejected the claims of  the European Communities with respect to 
United States law, finding that the provisions in question did not speak to the issue of zeroing.   
• The Panel rejected all of the claims of the Eu ropean Communities in the context of reviews of 
existing measures.  However, one member of the Panel dissented from this aspect of the Panel's findings.  The dissenting member of th e Panel would have upheld the claims of the 
European Communities as they relate to the 16 specific determinations of dumping in reviews 
as well as the United States "methodology" of zeroing in the context of reviews.  The dissenting member of the Panel would also have found one provision of a United States regulation to be WTO-inconsistent in respect of reviews. 
• The Panel recommended that the DSB request th e United States to bring its measures into 
conformity with its obligations under the AD Agreement . 
B. COMPLIANCE PANEL REPORTS (ARTICLE 21.5) 
1. WT/DS277 – United States – Investigation of the International Trade Commission in 
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 
WTO Agreements, on 14 February 2004 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 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 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  WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page 55 
 
 
 in the original dispute is not inconsistent with the United States' obligations under the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement and the SCM Agreement.   
C. APPELLATE BODY REPORTS  
1. WT/DS295 – Mexico – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Beef and Rice 
Complaint by the United States. On 16 June 2003 , the United States requested consultations with 
Mexico concerning its definitive anti-dumping measur es on beef and long grain white rice as well as 
certain provisions of Mexico's Foreign Trade Ac t and its Federal Code of Civil Procedure.  
The US claimed that these measures were inconsiste nt with Mexico's obligations under the provisions 
of GATT 1994, the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the SC M Agreement. In particular, the US claimed 
that:  
• Mexico's definitive anti-dumping measures on beef and long grain white rice were 
inconsistent with at least Articles 3, 5.8, 6, 9, 12, 11.1 and Annex II of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  
• Certain provisions of Mexico's Foreign Trade Act and its Federal Code  of Civil Procedure 
were inconsistent with Articles 5.8, 6, 6.1.1,  6.8, 7, 9, 9.5, 10.6, 11 and 11.1 of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement and Articles 11.9, 12.1.1, 12. 7, 17, 19, 19.3, 20.6, 21 and 21.1 of the 
SCM Agreement.  
• The US also claimed that Mexico's measures app ear to nullify or impair benefits accruing to 
the US directly or indirectly  under the cited agreements.  
On 19 September 2003, the US requested the establis hment of a panel. At its meeting on 2 October 
2003, 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 7 November 2003. China, the European 
Communities and Turkey reserved their third-party rights.  
On 4 February 2004, the United States requested the Director General to compose the panel. On 13 
February 2004, the Director-General composed the panel.  
On 11 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 matter, and that the Panel expected to 
issue its final report to the parties in November  2004. On 26 November 2004, the Chairman of the 
Panel informed the DSB that it expected  to complete its work in March 2005. 
On 6 June 2005, the Report of the Panel was circulated to Members. In its Report:  
• The Panel upheld all of the United States' clai ms concerning both the injury and the dumping 
margin determination of the Mexican investig ating authority in the rice investigation, 
applying judicial economy with resp ect to some other related claims. 
• With regard to the claims concerning Mexico's  Foreign Trade Act as such, the Panel also 
finds in favour of the United States on practically all accounts. The Panel rejected the US claim with regard to Mexico's Fe deral Code of Civil Procedure. WT/DS/OV/25 
Page 56  
 
 (Although the United States had originally included in its request for consultations the definitive anti-
dumping measures imposed by Mexico on imports of beef from the United States, in its request for 
the establishment of a panel the United States did not include the beef-related claims.)  
On 20 July 2005, the notification of an appeal was submitted by Mexico. On 14 September 2005, the 
Appellate Body informed the DSB that it would not be  able to provide its Report within 60 days in the 
light of the participants' request for translation of participants' and third par ticipants' submissions, and 
that the Report would be circulated to Members no later than 29 November. 2005.   
On 29 November 2005, the Appellate Body circulat ed its Report to Members. In its Report, the 
Appellate Body upheld, in large part, the Panel's findings of in consistency against Mexico's 
challenges on appeal.  The only exception is th at the Appellate Body rejected the Panel's 
understanding that an investigating authority must give notice of the information it requires to all 
interested parties known to it as well as thos e of which "it could r easonably have obtained 
knowledge".  Finding instead that the Anti-Dumping Agreement  requires that such notice be provided 
only to those interested parties actually known to  the investigating authority, the Appellate Body 
determined that exporters had received proper noti ce of the initiation of the investigation and the 
information required by the agency, and that an individual margin had been calculated for each 
individual "known" exporter.  Th e Appellate Body accordingly rever sed the Panel's findings that 
Mexico acted inconsistently with Articles 6.1, 6.10, and 12.1 of the  Anti-Dumping Agreement . 
D. A
PPELLATE BODY COMPLIANCE REPORTS (ARTICLE 21.5) 
IV. REPORTS CURRENTLY UNDER APPEAL 
A. ORIGINAL PANEL REPORTS  
B. COMPLIANCE PANEL REPORTS (ARTICLE 21.5) 
1. WT/DS257 – United States – Final Countervailing Duty Determination with respect to 
certain 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 
WTO Agreements, on 30 December 2004 Canada request ed 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 it s Report to Members.  The Panel found that the 
United States remains in violation of Article 10 and 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  WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page 57 
 
 
 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. 
2. WT/DS108 – United States – Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations" 
(See also VI)) 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 pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. At 
its meeting of 25 January 2005, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. At its meeting of 17 
February 2005, the DSB agreed to refe r 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 th is 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 Pa nel 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. In particul ar, in respect of the United States argument that 
there is no recommendation or ruling under Article 4.7 of the SCM Agreement resulting from the first 
compliance proceedings to withdraw the ETI subsid y "without delay", the Panel found that Article 
21.5 compliance proceedings form part of a contin uum of events flowing from the various steps in 
dispute settlement proceedings, with the operative recommendations and rulings for the purpose of 
Article 21.5 compliance proceedings being those adop ted by the DSB in the original proceedings, and 
that these thus remain operative through compliance panel proceedings under Article 21.5 of the DSU 
until the problem is entirely fixed, in terms of full wi thdrawal of the prohibited subsidy. In respect of 
the United States argument that this Panel's terms of reference do not include section 5 of the ETI 
Act, the Panel found that section 5 of the ETI  Act was within its terms of reference.  
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 deve loped by the Panel .   
V. COMPLETED PANEL AND APPELLATE BODY REVIEW 
A. APPELLATE BODY AND PANEL REPORTS ADOPTED  
1. WT/DS312 – Korea – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Certain Paper from 
Indonesia 
Complaint by Indonesia. On 4 June 2004, Indonesia requested consultations with Korea concerning 
the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties by Korea on imports of business information paper 
and uncoated wood-free printing paper from Indonesia a nd certain aspects of the investigation leading 
to the imposition of such duties.  
According to the request for consultations from In donesia, Korea violates its WTO obligations in 
respect of the following aspects:  WT/DS/OV/25 
Page 58  
 
 • Korea's initiation of investigation, notwithstandi ng several deficiencies such as the applicants' 
failure to include in the application sufficien t and adequate evidence of dumping, injury and 
causal link;  
• Korea's failure to provide in the Notice of In itiation any information regarding the factors on 
which the allegation of injury was based,.  
• the way Korea granted confidential treatment to information contained in the application,.  
• Korea's making of a request for information from a firm not subject to investigation, without 
having obtained the agreement of that firm a nd having notified the Indonesian Government of 
such request,  
• Korea's rejection of information related to the sales of a certain firm, without explaining the 
reason.  
• Korea's preliminary determination, in such resp ects as: like products, constructed value, best 
information available, denial of access to in formation, and the refusal to provide an 
opportunity to the exporters to present their views;  
• Korea's final determination, in such respect s as: like products, individual dumping margins, 
constructed value, treating a certain firm and other firms as a single economic unit; the impact 
and effect of the dumped imports on the domestic  industry and prices in the domestic market, 
failure to evaluate all relevant economic factors and indices, and denial of access to 
information. 
Indonesia considers that these Korean measures are in consistent with: Article VI of GATT 1994, inter 
alia, Article VI:1, VI:2 and VI:6; Articles 1, 2.1, 2.2, 2. 2.1.1, 2.2.2, 2.4, 2.6, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 4.1(i), 
5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.7, 6.1.2, 6.2, 6.4, 6.5, 6.5.1, 6.5. 2, 6.7, 6.8. 6.10, 9.3, 12.1.1(iv), 12.2, 12.3, Annex I, 
and paragraphs 3, 6, a nd 7 of Annex II of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  
On 16 August 2004, Indonesia requested the establis hment of a panel. At its meeting on 31 August 
2004, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish a panel 
by Indonesia, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 27 September 2004. Canada, China, the 
European Communities, Japan and the United States reserved their third-party rights. On 18 October 
2004, Indonesia requested the Director General to compose the panel. On 25 October 2004, the Director-General composed the panel.  
On 25 April 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 in light  of scheduling conflicts, and that it expected to 
complete its work in July 2005.  
On 28 October 2005, the Panel Report was circulated to Members.  In its Report:  
• The Panel found that the Korea Trade Commission  ("the KTC") acted inconsistently with 
relevant provisions of the Anti-dumping Agreem ent ("the Agreement") in determining the 
margin of dumping for one Indonesian company, in failing to provide a proper disclosure of the verification results and the details of the cal culations of the construc ted normal values for 
two Indonesian companies, and in also failing to  exercise special circumspection in the use of 
information from secondary sources instead of  domestic sales data provided by these two 
Indonesian companies. With respect to the KTC' s injury determination, the Panel found that 
the KTC erred in its assessment of the impact of dumped imports on the domestic industry  WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page 59 
 
 
 and in not requiring that good cause for confid ential treatment be shown regarding the 
information submitted in the application which was by nature confidential.  
• The Panel concluded that the KTC did not act inc onsistently with the relevant Articles of the 
Agreement in resorting to facts available with  respect to two Indonesian companies, in 
rejecting the domestic sales data submitted by  these two companies, in using constructed 
normal values for them, in treating three Indon esian companies belonging to the same Group 
as a single exporter and assigning a single margin of dumping to them. With respect to the KTC's injury determination, the Panel also c oncluded that the KTC did not err in its price 
analysis, in its treatment of the dumped imports made by the Korean producers from the subject countries and in disclosing its determin ation concerning the effect of the prices of 
dumped imports on the Korean industry.  
• The Panel exercised judicial economy regarding th e consequential claims raised by Indonesia, 
and did not address other claims withdrawn by Indonesia.  
• The Panel rejected Indonesia's request that th e Panel suggest that Korea bring its measures 
into conformity with its WTO obligations by revoking the anti-dumping measure at issue.  
At its meeting on 28 November 2005, the DSB adopted the Report of the Panel. 
2. WT/DS302 – Dominican Republic – Measures Affecting the Importation and Internal 
Sale of Cigarettes 
Complaint by Honduras. On 8 October 2003, Hondur as requested consultations with the Dominican 
Republic concerning certain measures affecting the importation and internal sale of cigarettes. This 
request is a new and expanded version of a co mplaint filed by Honduras on 28 August 2003 
(WT/DS300/1).  
According to Honduras, the Dominican Republic:  
• applies special rules, procedures and admini strative practices to determine the value of 
imported cigarettes for the purpose of applying th e Selective Consumption Tax (inter alia, in 
certain instances, considers the value of importe d cigarettes to be equal to the value of the 
"nearest similar" product in the domestic market),  and fails to establish and apply transparent 
and generally applicable criteria for determini ng the value of imported cigarettes (inter alia, 
fails to establish and apply such criteria for the identification of the "nearest similar" product);  
• does not publish the surveys con ducted by the Central Bank that are to be used to determine 
the value of cigarettes for the purpose of applying the Selective Consumption Tax;  
• accords conditions of competition to imported ci garettes that are less favourable than those 
accorded to domestic cigarettes by requiring that  stamps be affixed to cigarettes packages in 
the territory of the Dominican Republic;  
• entails costs and administrative burdens hinderi ng the importation of cigarettes by requiring 
importers of cigarettes to post a bond;  
• levies a transitional surcharge for economic st abilization of 2% of the CIF value of the 
imported goods;  
• levies a foreign exchange fee of 4.75% of  the value of the imported merchandise.  WT/DS/OV/25 
Page 60  
 
 Honduras considers that these Dominican Republic's me asures are inconsistent with Articles II:1(b), 
III:2, III:4, X:1, X:3(a), XI:1, and XV:4 of GATT 1994.  
On 23 October 2003, Guatemala and Nicaragua request ed to join the consultations. On 28 October 
2003, the Dominican Republic accepted both requests.  
On 8 December 2003, Honduras requested the estab lishment of a panel. At its meeting on 19 
December 2003, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Further to a second request to 
establish a panel by Honduras, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 9 January 2004. China, 
Chile, the European Communities and the United St ates reserved their third-party rights. On 19 
January 2004, Guatemala, Nicaragua and El Sa lvador reserved their third-party rights.  
On 17 February 2004, the Panel was composed. On 23 August 2004, the Chairman of the Panel 
informed the DSB that the Panel expected to complete its work by October 2004.  
On 26 November 2004, the Panel report was circul ated to Members. The Panel found that:  
• The transitional surcharge and the foreign exch ange fee imposed by the Dominican Republic 
are inconsistent with Article II:1(b) of GATT 1994. The foreign exchange fee is not justified 
under Article XV:9(a) of GATT 1994;  
• The stamp requirement imposed on cigarettes by the Dominican Republic is inconsistent with 
Article III:4 of GATT 1994;  
• Honduras did not demonstrate that the bond requi rement imposed on ci garette importers by 
the Dominican Republic violates either Article  X:1 or Article III:4 of GATT 1994; and  
• Before the legislation was am ended in January 2004, the Dominican Republic imposed its 
Selective Consumption Tax on im ported cigarettes in a manner inconsistent with Articles 
III:2 and X of GATT 1994.  
The Panel then recommended that the Dominican Re public bring its measures (namely, the foreign 
exchange fee, the transitional surcharge and the stamp requirement) into conformity with its WTO 
obligations.  
On 24 January 2005, the Dominican Republic notified its  intention to appeal certain issues of law and 
legal interpretations developed by the Panel. On 7 February 2005, Honduras notified its intention to 
appeal certain issues of law and legal in terpretations developed by the Panel.  
On 22 March 2005, 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 25 April 2005. 
On 25 April 2005, the report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members. The Appellate Body 
upheld the Panel's legal findings. The Appellate Body: 
• Upheld the Panel's finding that the stamp requirement imposed on cigarettes by the 
Dominican Republic is inconsistent with Ar ticle III:4 of GATT 1994 and is not justified 
under the exception of Article XX(d);  WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page 61 
 
 
 • Upheld the Panel's finding that Honduras failed to demonstrate that the bond requirement 
imposed on cigarette importers by the Dominican Republic violates Article III:4 of GATT 1994; and, 
• Rejected the appeal regarding the alleged Pane l's failure to conduct and objective assessment 
of the matter. 
At its meeting on 19 May 2005, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report, as 
modified by the Appellate Body Report.    
3. WT/DS301 – European Communities – Measures Affecting Trade in Commercial 
Vessels 
Complaint by Korea. On 3 September 2003, Kor ea requested consultations  with the European 
Communities concerning certain measures by the EC and its member States in favour of their 
shipbuilding industry which, according to Korea, ar e inconsistent with their WTO obligations. These 
measures are as follows:  
• EC Regulation 1177/2002 ("TDM Regulation") a nd EC Regulation 1540/98, as well as the 
EC member States' implementing provisions. These measures provide for subsidies in favour 
of commercial vessels in various forms;  
• The provision by the EC and the member States of subsidies in support of commercial vessels 
built in the EC, in form of (a) operational aid gr anted on a contractual basis in forms such as 
grants, export credits, guarantees or tax breaks, (b) restructuring aid, (c) regional or other 
investment aid, (d) research and development aid, (e) environmental protection aid and (f) 
insolvency and closure aid.  
Korea considered that these measu res are in breach of their obligations under the provisions of the 
WTO Agreements, inter alia:  
• Articles 1, 2, 3.1, 5(a) and (c), 6.3(a), (b) or  (c), 6.4 and 6.5 of the Agreement on Subsidies 
and Countervailing Measures ("SCM Agreement");  
• Articles I:1 and III:4 of GATT 1994; and  
• Article 23(1) and (2) of the DSU and Articl es 4, 7 and 32(1) of the SCM Agreement.  
Concerning the last point, the request states th at the TDM Regulation and the member States' 
implementing measures "have been designed and implemented as unilateral measures seeking redress of a perceived violation of Korea's obligations  under the SCM Agreement" and "constitute specific 
actions against perceived subsidies of another Me mber". This may refer to the dispute concerning 
Korea's own subsidies, on which a panel w as established in July 2003 (WT/DS273).  
Korea also considered that the above-described measures nullify or impair benefits accruing to Korea 
under the WTO Agreements, within the meaning of Articles XXIII:1(a) and (b) of GATT 1994 and 
Article 5(b) of the SCM Agreement.  
On 12 September 2003, China requested to join the consultations.  On 5 February 2004, Korea request ed the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 17 February 
2004, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish a panel WT/DS/OV/25 
Page 62  
 
 by Korea, the DSB established a panel at its mee ting on 19 March 2004. China, Japan and the United 
States reserved their third-party rights.  
On 13 May 2004, the Panel was composed.  On 5 November 2004, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that it would not be able to 
complete its work in six months inter alia due to  certain postponements in the Panel's timetable and 
other scheduling difficulties, and that the Panel hope d to complete its work by the end of February 
2005.  
On 22 April 2005, the Panel report was circulated to Members.  
• Regarding the claim of Korea under Article III:4 of the GATT 1994, the Panel found that the 
subsidies authorized under the TDM Regulation we re covered by the notion of "the payment 
of subsidies exclusively to domestic producer s" in Article III:8(b) of the GATT 1994, and 
thus were not "prevented" by Article III.  
• Regarding the claim of Korea under Article I: 1 of the GATT 1994, the Panel found that since 
the subsidies authorized under the TDM Regulati on were not covered by Article III:4 of the 
GATT 1994 by virtue of Article III:8(b), they were  also not covered by the phrase "all matters 
referred to in paragraphs 2 and 4 of Article III" in Article I:1.  
• Regarding Korea's claim under Article 32.1 of  the SCM Agreement, the Panel found that 
although the measures at issue were "specific"  within the meaning of that provision as 
interpreted by the Appellate Body, the measures at issue did not constitute action "against" a 
subsidy of another member as that term has been interpreted by the Appellate Body.  
• Regarding Korea's claim under Article 23.1 of th e DSU, the Panel interpreted this provision 
as imposing a general obligation on WTO Members not to act unilaterally when seeking the 
redress of a violation of an obligation under th e WTO Agreement. The Panel found that the 
European Communities had adopted the TDM mechan ism in response to what it considered to 
be a violation by Korea of its obligati ons under the SCM Agreement and that the 
Communities was seeking to induce Korea to remove its allegedl y WTO-inconsistent 
subsidies. Accordingly, the Panel conclude d that the European Communities had acted 
inconsistently with Article 23.1 of the DSU.  
As above, the Panel found that the measures at issue constitute a violation of Article 23.1 of the DSU, 
while the Panel rejects the claims of Korea that th e measures at issue are in breach of Articles I and III 
of the GATT 1994 and Article 32.1 of the SCM Agreement. 
On 20 June 2005, the Panel Report was adopted by the DSB.   4. WT/DS299 – European Communities – Co untervailing Measures on Dynamic Random 
Access Memory Chips from Korea 
Complaint by Korea. On 25 July 2003, Korea requested consultations with the European 
Communities concerning the EC's provisional count ervailing measures and any final countervailing 
measures which may be finalized and implemente d later this year agai nst dynamic random access 
memory chips ("DRAMs") from Korea.  
According to Korea, when considering the determin ations with respect to the provisional measures 
against the DRAMs from Korea, which have alrea dy been implemented, and any final measures on  WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page 63 
 
 
 the same products, which may be finalized and implemented later this year, the European 
Commission failed to comply with various WTO subs tantive and procedural requirements, including 
demonstration of the existence of a financial cont ribution and a benefit conf erred, and demonstration 
of specificity of the subsidies concerned.  
In Korea's view, these EC's measures at issue are in consistent with the EC's  obligations under the 
following WTO provisions:  
• Articles VI:3 and X.3 of GATT 1994;  
• Articles 1, 2, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 22 and 32.1 of the Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures.  
On 25 August 2003, Korea requested further consu ltations with the EC concerning the EC's final 
countervailing measures, which were adopted by the European Council on 11 August 2003 and 
published in the Official Journal of the EC on 22 August 2003.  
Korea wished to consult on the same issues raised in its previous consultations request, but from the 
additional perspectives of the adopted final measures.  
Korea further elaborated the EC's violation of Ar ticle 15 of the SCM Agreement. Korea claimed that 
the material injury finding by the EC is inconsistent , inter alia, with Articles 15.1, 15.2, 15.4, and 15.5 
of the SCM Agreement.  
On 19 November 2003, Korea requested the establishm ent of a panel. At its meeting on 1 December 
2003, 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 me eting on 23 January 2004. China, Japan, Chinese 
Taipei and the United States reserved their third-party rights.  
On 24 March 2004, the Panel was composed. Following the resignation of the Chairperson on 22 June 
2004, a new Chairman of the Panel was appointed on 27 July 2004. 
On 17 June 2005, the Panel Report was circulat ed to Members. The Panel finds as follows: 
•  The Panel rejects most of Korea's claims with regard to the question of subsidization, and 
finds that for three of the five programmes the EC's determinations of  financial contribution 
and benefit are consistent with the SCM Agreement . The Panel upholds Korea's claims with 
respect to the so-called "grant methodology"  applied by the European Communities for 
calculating the amount of the benefit which it finds to be inconsistent with the SCM 
Agreement .  
• In respect of the injury determination, the Pane l also rejects most of Korea's claims. However, 
the Panel upholds Korea's claim that the EC faile d to examine the factor "wages" as a relevant 
factor affecting the domestic industry. Th e Panel also finds against the European 
Communities with regard to the investigating authority's causation analysis which the Panel 
considers not to have complied with the require ment not to attribute injury caused by other 
factors to the subsidized imports.  
At its meeting on 3 August 2005, the DSB adopted the Panel Report.  WT/DS/OV/25 
Page 64  
 
 5. WT/DS296 – United States – Countervailing Duty Investigation on Dynamic Random 
Access Memory Semiconducto rs (DRAMs) from Korea 
Complaint by Korea. On 30 June 2003, Korea re quested consultations with the United States 
concerning the US authorities' affirmative prelim inary and final countervailing duty determinations, 
the preliminary injury determination and any subseq uent determinations that may be made during the 
injury investigation, on DRAMs and DRAM modul es from Korea. Korea is also challenging all 
related laws and regulations, incl uding Section 771 of the US Tariff Act of 1930 and 19 CFR 351 
respectively.  
Korea claimed that the above determ inations are inconsistent, inter a lia, with Articles VI:3 and X:3 of 
the GATT 1994 and Articles 1, 2, 10, 11, 12, 14, 17, 22, 32.1 of the SCM Agreement.  
On 18 August 2003, Korea requested further consu ltations with regard to the US authorities' 
countervailing duty determinations on DRAMs an d DRAM modules from Korea. This request 
concerns the USITC's affirmative final injury de termination and the DOC's final countervailing duty 
order, both of which were published on 11 Augus t 2003, that is, after the first request for 
consultations was made by Korea. Korea claime d that the determinati ons mentioned above are 
inconsistent, inter alia, with Articles 15.1, 15. 2, 15.4, and 15.5 of the SCM Agreement.  
On 19 November 2003, Korea requested the establishm ent of a panel. At its meeting on 1 December 
2003, 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 mee ting on 23 January 2004. China, the EC, Japan and 
Chinese Taipei reserved their third-party rights.  
On 23 February 2004, Korea requested the Director  General to compose the panel. On 5 March 2004, 
the Director-General composed the panel.  
On 16 August 2004, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that it would not be able to 
complete its work in six months in light of the sch edule which was agreed after consultations with the 
parties, and that the Panel expected to  complete its work in December 2004.  
On 21 February 2005, the Panel report was circulated to Members.  
• Concerning the DOC's finding of financial contri bution to Hynex Inc., the Panel found that 
the DOC did not properly demonstrate that the Korean Government availed itself of that capacity to entrust and direct all Group B and C creditors (i.e., two groups of creditors which 
were not 100% owned by the Korean Government) to participate in all financial contributions 
at issue in this case. The Panel therefore found that there was insufficient evidence to support 
a generalized finding of entrustment or direc tion with respect to all private bodies and the 
multiple transactions over the period of investig ation. Thus, the Pane l concluded that the 
DOC's determination of entrustmen t or direction of those creditors  is inconsistent with Article 
1.1(a)(1)(iv) of the SCM Agreement. 
• Concerning the DOC's finding of benefit conf erred to Hynex, the Panel found that, since 
Group B and C creditors were not found to be  entrusted or directed by the Korean 
Government (and therefore their financial re lationship with Hynix was not considered a 
financial contribution), they could have been used as possible benchmarks for the 
determination of benefit. Thus, the Panel f ound that the DOC's benefit determination is 
inconsistent with Articles 1.1(b) of the SCM Agreement.   WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page 65 
 
 
 • Concerning specificity, the Panel found that th e DOC's finding of entrustment or direction 
cannot provide a proper basis for the determina tion of specificity in respect of alleged 
subsidies provided by Group B and C creditors. Howe ver, to the extent that the DOC's finding 
of specificity in respect of Group A credito rs was based on the Government of Korea's 
activity specifically focused on Hynix, the Panel considered that such finding was consistent 
with Article 2 of the SCM Agreement. 
• Concerning the ITC's injury determination, the Panel rejected all but one claim by Korea, 
related to non-attribution. The Panel found that the ITC did not properly ensure that injury 
caused by one known factor other than the allege dly subsidized imports was not attributed to 
the allegedly subsidized imports. Therefore,  the Panel found a violation of the ITC's 
obligation under Article 15.5 of the SCM Agreement.  
• The Panel either rejected or exercised judici al economy on all other claims by Korea related 
to verification meetings, burden of proof, Article 4.4 of the DSU, the levying of 
countervailing duties (Article 19.4 of the SC M Agreement and Article VI.3 of the GATT 
1994), Articles 10 and 32.1 of the SCM Agreemen t and Article 22.3 of the SCM Agreement  
On 29 March 2005, the United States notified its inten tion to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the Pa nel.  (The United States appealed with regard to the DOC's subsidy 
determination, but not with regard to the ITC's injury determination. ) On 27 June 2005, the Appellate 
Body circulated its report to Members.  In its Report: 
• The Appellate Body modified the Panel's inte rpretation of Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv) and found 
errors in the Panel's review of the evidence underlying the USDOC's finding of entrustment or 
direction.  The Appellate Body concluded that  these errors undermined the Panel's conclusion 
that the evidence could not support the USDOC's  finding of entrustment or direction and, 
therefore, reversed this conclusion, as well as the Panel's finding of inconsistency with Article 
1.1(a)(1)(iv).  The Appellate Body  further determined that it could not arrive at a conclusion, 
based on its own analysis, as to whether the US DOC's subsidy determination was consistent 
with Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv).   
• The Appellate Body also reversed the Panel's findings of inconsistency with Article 1.1(b) 
(benefit) and Article 2 (specificity) of the SCM Agreement  because they were premised on the 
finding of inconsistency with Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv) .  The Appellate Body determined that there 
were neither sufficient factual findings by the Panel nor undisputed facts in the record to 
allow it to complete the analysis.  
• The Appellate Body also found that the Panel ha d failed to comply with its obligations under 
Article 11 of the DSU to "make an objective as sessment of the matter before it, including an 
objective assessment of the facts of the case", inter alia , by failing to apply the proper 
standard of review. 
• As a result of the Appellate Body's reversals,  there remain no findings  of WTO-inconsistency 
with respect to the USDOC's subsidy  determination.   
At its meeting on 20 July 2005, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report as 
modified by the Appellate Body Report.  WT/DS/OV/25 
Page 66  
 
 6. WT/DS285 – United States – Measures Aff ecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling 
and Betting Services 
Complaint by Antigua and Barbuda. On 21 March 20 03, Antigua and Barbuda requested consultations 
with the US regarding measures applied by central , regional and local authorities in the US which 
affect the cross-border supply of gambling and bettin g services. Antigua and Barbuda considered that 
the cumulative impact of the US measures is to prevent the supply of gambling and betting services 
from another WTO Member to the United States on a cross-border basis.  
According to Antigua and Barbuda, the measures at i ssue may be inconsistent with the US obligations 
under the GATS, and in particular Articles II, VI , VIII, XI, XVI and XVII thereof, and the US 
Schedule of Specific Commitments annexed to the GATS.  
On 12 June 2003, Antigua and Barbuda requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 24 
June 2003, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Further to a second request by Antigua and 
Barbuda, the DSB established a panel at its mee ting on 21 July 2003. Canada, the EC, Mexico and 
Chinese Taipei reserved their third-party rights. On 23 July 2003, Japan reserved its third-party rights.  
On 15 August 2003, Antigua and Barbuda requested the Director General to compose the panel. On 
25 August 2003, the Director-General composed the panel. On 29 January 2004, the Chairman of the 
Panel informed the DSB that it would not be possible for the Panel to complete its work in six months 
because various factors had had an impact on the Pa nel's timetable, such as a party's request for 
preliminary rulings, the intervention of the holiday season, the heavy agenda of the panelists as well 
as the complexity of the legal and factual ques tions which had been raised. The Panel hoped to 
complete its work by the end of April 2004.  
In the context of the negotiations for a mutually ag reed solution to the present dispute, the parties 
requested the Panel to suspend the panel proceedi ngs, in accordance with Article 12.12 of the DSU, 
until 23 August 2004. On 25 June 2004, the Panel has agreed to this request. The parties subsequently 
requested a continuation of the suspension until 4 Oc tober 2004, and the Panel agreed to the request 
on 18 August 2004. The parties requested a continuation of the suspension until 16 November 2004, 
and the Panel agreed to the request on 8 Octobe r 2004. On 5 November 2004 Antigua requested the 
resumption of the panel proceedings to the Panel and the United States did not objected to this 
request. The Panel has therefore agreed to resume  the panel proceedings as from 8 November 2004.  
On 10 November 2004, the report of the Panel was ci rculated to Members. The Panel found that:  
• The GATS Schedule of the United States has been interpreted to include specific 
commitments for gambling and betting services under the sub-sector entitled "Other 
Recreational Services (except sporting)";  
• Three US federal laws (the Wire Act, the Travel Act and the Illegal Gambling Business Act) 
and the provisions of four US state laws (t hose of Louisiana, Massachusetts, South Dakota 
and Utah) on their face, prohibit one, several or all means of delivery included in mode 1 of 
GATS (i.e. cross-border supply), contrary to the United States' specific market access 
commitments for gambling and betting services fo r mode 1. Therefore, the United States 
failed to accord services and service suppliers of Antigua treatment no less favourable than that provided for under the terms, limitations a nd conditions agreed and specified in the US 
Schedule, contrary to Article XVI:1 and Artic le XVI:2 of the GATS (i.e. concerning market 
access);   WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page 67 
 
 
 • Antigua failed to demonstrate that the measures at issue are inconsistent with Articles VI:1 
and VI:3 of the GATS (i.e. concerning domestic regulation);  
• The United States was not able to invoke su ccessfully the GATS exceptions provisions. In 
this regard, the United States was not able to de monstrate that the Wire Act, the Travel Act 
and the Illegal Gambling Business Act are "necessary" under Articles XIV(a) and XIV(c) of 
the GATS (i.e. "exceptions" provisions, including for public morals) and are consistent with 
the requirements of the chapeau of Article XIV of the GATS;  
• The Panel decided to exercise judicial econom y with respect to Antigua's claims under 
Articles XI (i.e. concerning payments and tr ansfers) and XVII (i.e. concerning national 
treatment) of the GATS.  
On 7 January 2005, United States notified its inte ntion to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the Panel. On 19 January 2005, Antigua and Barbuda notified its 
intention to appeal certain issues of law and le gal interpretations developed by the Panel.  
On 8 March 2005, 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 7 April 2005.  
On 7 April 2005, the report of the Appellate Body was circulated. The Appellate Body: 
• upheld the Panel's finding that an alleged "t otal prohibition" on the cross-border supply of 
gambling and betting services cannot, in and of itself, constitute a "measure" subject to dispute settlement under the GATS;  
• found that the Panel should not have ruled on cl aims advanced by Antigua with respect to 
eight state laws of the United States, as to which Antigua had not made a prima facie case of inconsistency with the GATS; 
• upheld the Panel's finding, albeit for different  reasons, that the United States' Schedule 
includes a commitment to grant full market access in gambling and betting services. In 
particular, in the course of its interpretation of the United States' Schedule, the Appellate 
Body disagreed with the Panel's designation of two documents—referred to as W/120 and the 1993 Scheduling Guidelines—as "context" for th e interpretation of Members' Schedules, 
finding instead that they cons titute "preparatory work";  
• upheld the Panel's finding that the United States  acts inconsistently with Article XVI:1 and 
sub-paragraphs (a) and (c) of Article XVI:2 by maintaining certain limitations on market 
access not specified in its Schedule; and 
• reversed the Panel's finding that  the United States had not shown that the three federal statutes 
are "necessary to protect public morals or to ma intain public order", within the meaning of 
Article XIV(a); found that the United States' me asures are justified under Article XIV(a) of 
the GATS as measures "necessary to protect public morals or to maintain public order"; and 
upheld, albeit on a narrower ground, the Panel's finding that the United States had failed to 
show that these measures satisfy the conditi ons of the chapeau of Article XIV.  
At its meeting of 20 April 2005, the DSB adopted th e Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as 
modified by the Appellate Body report.  WT/DS/OV/25 
Page 68  
 
 7. WT/DS282 – United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods 
(OCTG) from Mexico 
Complaint by Mexico. On 18 February 2003, Mexico requested consultations with the US as regards 
several anti-dumping measures imposed by the US on imports of OCTG from Mexico, including the 
final determinations in some admi nistrative and sunset reviews; and the US authorities' determination 
regarding the continuation of the anti-dumping orders . In addition to these measures, Mexico's request 
includes a number of laws, regulations and administ rative practices (such as "zeroing") used by the 
US authorities in the above determinations. Mexico  considers that the above anti-dumping measures 
are incompatible with Articles 1, 2, 3, 6, 11 and 18 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, Articles VI and 
X of the GATT 1994 and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement. 
On 29 July 2003, Mexico requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 18 August 2003, 
the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Fu rther to a second request to establish a panel by 
Mexico, the DSB established a panel at its meeti ng on 29 August 2003. Argentina, China, the EC, 
Japan, Chinese Taipei and Venezuela reserved their third-party rights. On 5 September 2003, Canada 
reserved its third-party rights. On 11 Fe bruary 2004, the Panel was composed.  
On 16 August 2004, the Chairman of the Panel in formed the DSB that it would not be able to 
complete its work in six months in light of the sch edule which was agreed after consultations with the 
parties, and that the Panel expected to complete its work in March 2005. 
On 20 June 2005, the Report of the Panel was circulated to Members.  In its report:  
• Regarding Mexico's claims on the legal instrume nts governing determinati ons of likelihood of 
recurrence of dumping, the Panel concluded that  USDOC practice in sun set reviews was not a 
measure properly before it, and therefore dec lined to rule on that aspect of Mexico's 
arguments.  The Panel further found that the US  Statute and the SAA were not, themselves, 
inconsistent with Article 11.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, but that the Sunset Policy Bulletin (SPB) as such was inconsistent with Article 11.3. 
• Regarding Mexico's claims on the USDOC de termination of likeli hood of recurrence of 
dumping, the Panel found that USDOC had ma de its determinati on of likelihood of 
continuation or recurrence of dumping exclusively on the basis of a decline in import volumes, and failed to consider potentially releva nt evidence. Therefore, the Panel ruled that 
the sunset determination was not consistent with Article 11.3.  
• The Panel also found that the USITC did not act inconsistently with Article 11.3 in 
concluding that expiry of the anti-dumping me asure on OCTG from Mexico would be likely 
to lead to continuation or recurrence of injury , and that the USDOC did not act inconsistently 
with Article 11.2 in determining not to term inate the anti-dumping measure with respect to 
two Mexican exporters based on their specific circ umstances.  The Panel also concluded that 
certain provisions cited by Mexico are not appli cable to reviews, and in addition it did not 
need to rule on a number of depe ndent and consequential claims.  
On 4 August 2005, Mexico notified its decision to app eal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law 
covered in the Report of the Panel.  On 16 A ugust 2005, the United States notified its decision to 
appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law covered in the Report of the Panel. On 26 
September 2005, the Appellate Body informed the DSB that due to the time required for completion and translation of the Report, it would not be able to circulate its Report within 60-day period, and 
that it was estimated that the Report would be circ ulated to Members no later than 2 November 2005.   WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page 69 
 
 
 On 2 November 2005, the Appellate Body circulat ed its Report to Members. The Appellate Body 
upheld  the Panel's finding that the  USITC did not act inconsistently  with Article 11.3 of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement , and ruled that it is not necessary to establish the existence of a causal link 
between likely dumping and likely injury.  However, the Appellate Body reversed  the Panel with 
respect to the  Sunset Policy Bulletin , ruling that the Panel failed to make an objective assessment of 
the matter, including an objective assessment of the f acts of the case, as required by Article 11 of the  
DSU.  Essentially, the Appellate Body found that the Panel did not adequately assess the evidence  in 
order to come to its conclusion that the Bulletin  establishes an irrebuttable presumption regarding 
likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping . 
At its meeting on 28 November 2005, the DSB a dopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel 
Report as modified by the Appellate Body Report.  
8. WT/DS277 – United States – Investigation of the International Trade Commission in 
Softwood Lumber from Canada 
Complaint by Canada. On 20 December 2002, Canada requested consultations with the United States 
regarding the investigation of the USITC in So ftwood Lumber from Canada (Invs. Nos. 701-TA-414 
and 731-TA-928 (Final)) and the final definitive an ti dumping and countervailing duties applied as a 
result of the USITC's final determination made on 2 May 2002, notice of which was published in the 
United States Federal Register on 22 May 2002 (Volume 67, Number 99 at pp. 36022-36023) that an industry in the United States is threatened with ma terial injury by reason of imports of softwood 
lumber from Canada that the Depart ment of Commerce has determined are subsidized and sold in the 
United States at less than fair value.  
Canada claimed that, through these measures, the United States has violated its obligations under 
Article VI:6(a) of the GATT 1994, Articles 1, 3.1, 3.2,  3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.7, 3.8, 12 and 18.1 of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement and Articles 10, 15.1, 15.2, 15.3, 15.4, 15.5, 15.7, 15.8, 22 and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement.  
On 3 April 2003, Canada requested the establishmen t of a panel. At its meeting on 15 April 2003, the 
DSB deferred the establishment of the panel. Further to a second request by Canada, the DSB 
established a panel at its meeting on 7 May 2003. Th e EC and Japan reserved their third party rights. 
On 16 May 2003, Korea reserved its third party ri ghts. On 12 June 2003, Canada requested the 
Director-General to compose the panel. On 19 June  2003, the Director-General composed the panel. 
On 19 December 2003, the Chairman of the Panel info rmed the DSB that it would not be possible for 
the Panel to complete its work in six months in light of scheduling comflicts. The Panel expected to 
complete its work in February 2004.  
On 22 March 2004, the Panel report was circulated to Members. The Panel found that, in its final 
threat of injury determination, the US Internati onal Trade Commission (USITC) failed to comply with 
the requirements of Articles 3.5 and 3.7 the AD Agreement and Article 15.5 and 15.7 of the SCM 
Agreement in finding a likely imminent substan tial increase in imports and a casual link between 
imports and threat of injury to the domestic indus try in the US producing softwood lumber. The Panel 
found that the USITC's finding of likelihood of subs tantially increased imports was not consistent 
with the requirements of the Agreements, and that th e causation conclusion rested  on this inconsistent 
finding. The Panel therefore found that the anti-dum ping and countervailing measures imposed by the 
US on imports of softwood lumber from Canada are inconsistent with the US  obligations under those 
provisions, and recommended that those measures be brought into conformity with the US 
obligations.  
At its meeting on 26 April 2004, the DSB adopted the Panel report.  WT/DS/OV/25 
Page 70  
 
 9. WT/DS276 – Canada – Measures Relating to  Exports of Wheat and Treatment of 
Imported Grain 
Complaint by the United States. On 17 December 2002, the United States requested consultations 
with Canada as regards matters concerning the expor t of wheat by the Canadian Wheat Board and the 
treatment accorded by Canada to  grain imported into Canada.  
According to the United States, the actions of th e Government of Canada and the Canadian Wheat 
Board (entity enjoying exclusive rights to pur chase and sell Western Canadian wheat for human 
consumption) related to export of wheat appear to be  inconsistent with paragr aphs 1(a) and 1(b) of 
Article XVII of GATT 1994.  
As regards the treatment of grain imported into Ca nada, the United States maintains that the following 
Canadian measures are inconsistent with Article III of the GATT 1994 and Article 2 of TRIMs since 
they discriminate against imported grain:  
• Under the Canadian Grain Act and Canadian regulations, imported wheat cannot be mixed 
with Canadian domestic grain being received into  or discharged out of grain elevators, and  
• Canadian Law caps the maximum revenues that railroads may receive on the shipment of 
domestic grain but not revenues received on th e shipment of imported grain; and Canada 
provides a preference for domestic grain ove r imported grain when allocating government-
owned railcars.  
On 20 December 2002, the European Communities,  Japan and Mexico requested to join the 
consultations. On 24 December 2002, Australia request ed to join the consultations. On 6 March 2003, 
the US requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 18 March 2003, the DSB deferred the 
establishment of a panel. Further to a second request  by the US, the DSB established a Panel at its 
meeting on 31 March 2003. Chile, Chinese Taipei, the EC, Japan and Mexico reserved their third-
party rights. On 9 and 10 April 2003 respectively,  China and Australia reserved their third-party 
rights. On 2 May 2003, Canada requested the Dire ctor-General to compose the panel. On 12 May 
2003, the Director-General compo sed the panel. On 30 June 2003, the United States submitted a new 
request for the establishment of a panel. On 1 July 2003, the Chair of the Panel informed the DSB that 
it had agreed to the United States' request to susp end the Panel for three weeks from 1-21 July 2003. 
The DSB established a second panel at its meeting on 11 July 2003. Australia, Chile, China, the EC, 
Japan and Chinese Taipei reserved their third-party ri ghts. On 25 July 2003, Mexico reserved its third-
party rights. On 11 July 2003, the second Panel wa s composed. Further to a request by the United 
States, acceded to by the Panel, the preliminary ruling by the Panel was circulated to Members for 
their information on 21 July 2003. On 30 October 2003, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB 
that the first Panel would not be able to complete its work within six months due to the three week 
suspension requested by the US fo llowing the issuance of a prelimin ary ruling by the Panel and the 
harmonization of this Panel's timetable with that of the second Panel and that the Panel expected to 
issue its final report to the parties in February 2004.  
On 6 April 2004, the Panel report was circulated to Members. The Panel found that:  
• The United States had failed to establish its cl aim that Canada had breached its obligations 
under Article XVII:1 of the GATT 1994 with respect to the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB);  
• Section 57(c) of the Canada Grain Act, and S ection 56(1) of the Canada Grain Regulations 
were inconsistent with Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 and were not justified under Article 
XX(d) of the GATT 1994;   WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page 71 
 
 
 • Sections 150(1) and (2) of the Canada Transpor tation Act were inconsistent with Article III:4 
of GATT 1994;  
• The United States had failed to establish its claim that section 87 of the Canada Grain Act was 
inconsistent with Article III:4 of the GA TT 1994 and Article 2 of the TRIMs Agreement. 
On 1 June 2004, the United States notified its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues 
of law covered in the Panel Report and certain le gal interpretations deve loped by the Panel.  
On 30 August 2004, the Appellate Body Report was circulated to Members. The Appellate Body 
upheld the Panel's conclusion that the United States  had not demonstrated that the Canadian Wheat 
Board (CWB) Export Regime is in consistent with Artic le XVII:1 of the GATT 1994. At its meeting 
on 27 September 2004, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as modified 
by the Appellate Body report.  
10. WT/DS273 – Korea – Measures Affectin g Trade in Commercial Vessels 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 21 Oc tober 2002, the European Communities requested 
consultations with Korea on certain measures est ablishing subsidies to its shipbuilding industry 
which, according to the European Communities, are inconsistent with Korea' s obligations under the 
SCM Agreement. These measures are as follows:  
• Corporate restructuring subsidies in the form of  debt forgiveness, debt and interest relief and 
debt-to-equity swaps, provided through g overnment-owned and government-controlled 
banks;  
• Special taxation on in-kind contribution and th e special taxation on spin-off scheme provided 
in the Special Tax Treatment Control Law wh ich establishes two tax programmes limited to 
companies under corporate restructuring and provided tax concessions to Daewoo;  
• Pre-shipment loans and advance payment re fund guarantees provided by the state-owned 
Export-Import Bank of Korea ("KEXIM") to all Korean shipyards.  
The EC indicated that the subsid ies in question were granted with respect to the production of 
commercial vessels for international commerce, includi ng: bulk carriers, container ships, oil tankers, 
product and chemical tankers, LNG/LPG carriers,  passenger and RoRo ferries and other non-cargo 
vessels (including offshore units).  
The EC considered that the Korean measures are in  breach of Korea's obligations under the provisions 
of the SCM Agreement, in particular, but not necessar ily exclusively of: Articles 1, 2, 3.1, 5(a), 5(c), 
6.3 and 6.5 of the SCM Agreement.  
On 12 June 2003, the EC requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 24 June 2003, the 
DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Fu rther to a second request by the EC, the DSB 
established a panel at its meeting on 21 July 2003.  China, Japan, Mexico, No rway, Chinese Taipei and 
the United States reserved their third-party rights. The DSB also agreed, following the request by the 
EC, to initiate the Annex V procedures pursuant to  paragraph 2 of Annex V of the SCM Agreement 
with respect to developing information concer ning serious prejudice under Annex V of the SCM 
Agreement.  
On 11 August 2003, the EC requested the Director-G eneral to compose the panel. On 20 August 
2003, the panel was composed.  WT/DS/OV/25 
Page 72  
 
 Following the passing away on 11 April 2004 of Chai rman of the Panel, and pursuant to a joint 
request of the parties on 6 May 2004, the Director-General on 11 May 2004 appointed a new Chairman to the Panel.  
On 7 March 2005, the Panel report was circulated to  Members. The Panel found that certain (but not 
all) KEXIM pre-shipment loans and advance payment refund guarantees are prohibited export 
subsidies, and thus that Korea is in violation of  Articles 3.1(a) and 3.2 of the SCM Agreement. In 
accordance with Article 4.7 of the SCM Agreement,  the Panel recommends that Korea withdraw the 
relevant subsidies without dela y, i.e., within 90 days.  
• With regard to the KEXIM legal regime , the Panel, finding the mandatory/discretionary 
distinction was still valid, found the KEXIM le gal regime did not require the provision of 
export subsidies, and that therefore it did not violate Articles 3.1(a) and 3.2 of the SCM 
Agreement.  
• With regard to individual APRGs and PSLs  identified by the EC, all of these were found to be 
government financial contributions and conti ngent on export performance. In only certain 
instances, however, did the Panel find that the EC had established that the fees and interest 
rates charged were below the terms that the be neficiaries could have obtained on the market. 
The Panel found that those APRGs and PSLs provi ded at below-market terms were prohibited 
export subsidies, in violation of Articles 3.1(a) and 3.2 of the SCM Agreement.  
• With regard to the corporate restructurings , the Panel found that while the transactions 
constituted "financial contributions" and th e government-owned creditors were "public 
bodies" in the sense of SCM Article 1.1(a)(1),  the EC had not established that the private 
sector creditors were "entrusted or directed " by the government to provide financial 
contributions. Looking at the terms of the restru cturings, the Panel found that the EC had not 
established that the decisions to restructure ra ther than liquidate were inconsistent with 
commercial considerations, nor that the terms of the individual elements of the restructurings 
were inconsistent with commerc ial considerations. Thus, the Pa nel found that the EC had not 
demonstrated that the restructurings involved subsidization.  
• With regard to serious prejudice , the Panel examined this claim only in respect of the 
individual instances of KEXIM financing that  it had found to constitute prohibited export 
subsidies, and that involved financing of any of the three ship types covered by the claim 
(LNGs, container ships and product/chemical tanke rs). The Panel found that the EC had not 
established that these subsidized transactions  had caused significant suppression or depression 
of world prices for any of the three ship typ es, because of the relatively small numbers of 
such transactions in relation to the total numbe r of sales of these ships by the Korean industry 
and in the world market as a whole, and becau se the EC had not presented specific evidence 
linking these transactions to overall suppression/depression of world price levels for these ships, and indeed had not attempted to make this argument. 
The DSB adopted the Panel report on 11 April 2005.  
11. WT/DS269, WT/DS286 – European Communities  – Customs Classification of Frozen 
Boneless Chicken Cuts 
Complaints by Brazil (WT/DS269) and Thailand (WT/DS286). On 11 October 2002, Brazil requested 
consultations with the European Communities c oncerning EC Commission Regulation No. 1223/2002 
("Regulation No. 1223/2002"), of 8 July 2002, which provides a new description of frozen boneless 
chicken cuts under the EC Combined Nomenclature  ("CN") code 0207.14.10. According to Brazil,  WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page 73 
 
 
 this new description includes a salt content to the product that did not exist before and subjects the 
imports of these products to a higher tariff than that  applicable to salted meat (CN code 0210) in the 
EC's Schedules under the GATT 1994.  
Brazil submits that Regulation No. 1223/2002 automa tically forces products that were previously 
imported under CN code 0210.99.39,  and subject to an ad valorem tariff rate of 15,4%, to be 
classified under CN code 0207.14.10, and subject to a higher tariff rate of 102,4 €/100kg/net. This 
tariff rate of 102,4 €/100k g/net is in excess of the tariff rate for salted meat (CN code 0210) provided 
for in the EC's Schedules under the GATT 1994.  
As a result of this measure, Brazil considered th at its commerce has been accorded treatment less 
favourable than that provided in the EC Schedules, in  contravention of the obligations of the EC under 
Articles II and XXVIII of the GATT 1994. In addition,  Brazil claimed that the application of this 
measure by the EC nullifies and impairs, within th e meaning of Article XXIII:1, benefits accruing to 
Brazil directly or indirectly under the GATT 1994.  
On 25 October 2002, the United States re quested to join the consultations.  
On 25 March 2003, Thailand requested consultations with the EC on the same  matter. According to 
Thailand, the measure at issue is inconsistent w ith the EC's obligations under Articles II:1(a) and 
II:1(b) of the GATT 1994 and its Schedule of C oncessions. On 3 and 10 April 2003 respectively, 
Brazil and the United States requested to join the c onsultations. The EC informed the DSB that it had 
accepted the request of Brazil to join the consultations.  
On 19 September 2003, Brazil requested the establishm ent of a panel. At its meeting on 2 October 
2003, 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 m eeting on 7 November 2003. Chile, China, Thailand 
and the United States reserved their third-party rights.  
On 27 October 2003, Thailand requested the establishm ent of a panel. At its meeting on 7 November 
2003, the DSB deferred the establishment of a pa nel. On 21 November 2003, further to a second 
request by Thailand for the establishment of a pane l, the DSB established a single panel, pursuant to 
an agreement between the parties and in accordance with Article 9.1 of the DSU. The Members which 
had reserved their third party rights in the pane l established at the request of Brazil were also 
considered as third parties in the single panel. In  addition, Brazil, Columbia and Chile reserved their 
third-party rights in the single panel.  
On 17 June 2004, Brazil and Thailand requested the Director-General to compose the panel.  On 
28 June 2004, the Director-General composed the pa nel. On 14 July 2004, Chile informed the Panel 
that it did not want to participate as third-party in these panel proceedings.  
On 14 September 2004, Colombia informed the Panel th at it did not want to participate as third-party 
in these panel proceedings.  
On 19 November 2004, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that it would not be able to 
complete its work in six months due to the comple xity of the case and the sensitivity of the legal and 
factual questions that have been raised, and that the Panel hoped to complete its work by the end of 
March 2005.  
On 30 May 2005, the Panel report was circulated to  Members. The Panel found that the measure at 
issue is inconsistent with the EC's obligations under Articles II:1(a) and II:1(b) of the GATT 1994, 
because the products at issue were covered by the concession contained in heading 02.10 and yet, the WT/DS/OV/25 
Page 74  
 
 measure at issue resulted in the imposition of cu stoms duties on the product at issue in excess of the 
duties provided for in respect of the concession c ontained in heading 02.10, by classifying the 
products at issue under the concession contained in heading 02.07. 
On 13 June 2005, the European Communities notified its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body 
certain issues of law covered in the Panel Reports and certain legal interpre tations developed by the 
Panel in these reports.  On 27 June 2005, Brazil notif ied its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body 
certain issues of law covered in the Panel Reports and certain legal interpre tations developed by the 
Panel in these reports.  On 11 August 2005, the Ch airman of the Appellate Body informed the DSB 
that due to the time required for completion and tr anslation of the Report, the Appellate Body would 
not be able to circulate its Report by 12 August 200 5, and that it estimated that the Appellate Body 
Report in this appeal would be circulated to WTO Members no later than 12 September 2005. 
On 12 September 2005, the Appellate Body circulat ed its Report to Members. The Appellate Body 
essentially upheld the procedural and substantive conclu sions of the Panel, such that it found that the 
European Communities' measures to be WTO-incons istent, although the Appe llate Body relied on 
different reasoning. However, the Appellate Body reversed the Panel's finding that the European 
Communities' practice, between 1996 and 2002, of cl assifying the products at issue as salted meat 
constitutes "subsequent practice in the application of  the treaty which establishes the agreement of the 
parties regarding its interpretation" under Article  31(3)(b) of the Vienna Convention on the Law 
of Treaties.  
At its meeting on 27 September 2005, the DSB adopt ed the Appellate Body Report and the Panel 
Report as modified by the Appellate Body report.  
12. WT/DS268 – United States – Sunset Reviews of  Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country 
Tubular Goods from Argentina 
Complaint by Argentina. On 7 October 2002, Ar gentina requested consultations with the US 
regarding the final determinations of the US  Department of Commerce ("DOC") and the US 
International Trade Commission ("ITC") in the sunset reviews of the anti-dumping duty order on 
OCTG from Argentina, issued on 7 November  2000 (65 Federal Register 66701) and June 2001 
(USITC Pub. No. 3434), respectively, and the DOC's  determination to continue the anti-dumping duty 
order on OCTG from Argentina, issued on 25 July 2001 (66 Federal Register 38630).  
Argentina considered that general US laws, re gulations, policies and procedures related to the 
administration of sunset reviews and the applica tion of anti-dumping measures were inconsistent 
either on their face or as applied with Articles 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 11, 12, and 18 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement (ADA); Articles VI and X of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994; 
and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.  
Furthermore, Argentina claimed th at the sunset review conducted by  the DOC is inconsistent with 
Articles 2, 5, 5.8, 11.3, 11.4, 12.1, and 12.3 of th e ADA. It also claimed that the sunset review 
conducted by the ITC was inconsistent with Articles 3 and 11.3 of the ADA.  
On 3 April 2003, Argentina requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 15 April 2003, 
the DSB deferred the establishment of the panel. Further to a second request by Argentina, the DSB 
established a panel at its meeting on 19 May 2003. Th e EC, Japan, Korea, Mexico and Chinese Taipei 
reserved their third-party rights. On 22 August 200 3, Argentina requested the Director-General to 
compose the panel. On 4 September 2003, the Director-General composed the panel.   WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page 75 
 
 
 On 4 March 2004, the Chairman of the Panel informed  the DSB that it would not be able to complete 
its work in six months in light of scheduling conflicts  and that the Panel expected to complete its work 
in June 2004.  
On 16 July 2004, the report of the Panel was ci rculated to Members. The Panel found that:  
• Certain provisions of United States' law regard ing waivers in sunset reviews and certain 
provisions of the Sunset Policy Bulletin (SPB) concerning the DOC's obligation to determine 
likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumpi ng in sunset reviews are inconsistent with 
the US obligations under certain provisions of the ADA. With respect to the DOC's likelihood determinations in the OCTG sunset review, the Panel finds that the DOC acted inconsistently 
with certain provisions of the ADA, but did not act inconsistently with other provisions of 
that Agreement;  
• The US law's standard for the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury 
determinations in sunset reviews and the ITC's determinations in the OCTG sunset review are 
not inconsistent with the relevant articles of the ADA.  
On 31 August 2004, United States notified its inten tion to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the Panel. On 28 Oc tober 2004, the Chairman of the Appellate Body 
informed the DSB that the Appellate Body would not  be able to circulate its Report within 60-day 
period due to the time required for completion and tr anslation of the Report, and that the Appellate 
Body expected to complete its work no late r than 29 November 2004 On 29 November 2004, the 
Appellate Body Report was circulated to Members. The Appellate Body:  
with respect to the issues app ealed by the United States:  
• upheld  the Panel's finding that Argentina's challenges to certain provisions of United States 
law—namely, Sections 751(c) and 752(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, the Statement of 
Administrative Action, and the Sunset Policy Bu lletin—were set out with sufficient clarity in 
Argentina's request for the establishment of a pa nel, as required by Article 6.2 of the DSU;  
• upheld  the Panel's finding that the Sunset Polic y Bulletin is a "measure" subject to WTO 
dispute settlement proceedings;  
• found  that the Panel did not meet its obligation under Article 11 of the DSU to "make an 
objective assessment of the matter before it", with respect to the Panel's analysis leading to its 
conclusion that the Sunset Policy Bulletin is inconsistent with Article 11.3 of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement (governing reviews of anti- dumping duties after fi ve years) because the 
Panel relied solely on overall statistics and did no t appear to conduct a qualitative analysis of 
the cases filed in evidence. Consequently, the Appellate Body reversed  this conclusion of the 
Panel;  
• upheld  the Panel's finding that Section 751(c)(4 )(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930 and Section 
351.218(d)(2)(iii) of the USDOC Regulations – provisions that allow for parties to be considered to have waived their rights to pa rticipation in a sunset review proceeding under 
certain circumstances – are inconsistent with  Article 11.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement 
because the USDOC's determinations based on such waivers do not qualify as reasoned 
conclusions based on positive evidence;  
• upheld  the Panel's finding that Section 351.218( d)(2)(iii) of the USDOC Regulations —a 
provision that allows for parties to be "deemed" to have waived their rights to participation in WT/DS/OV/25 
Page 76  
 
 a sunset review proceeding under certain circumst ances—is inconsistent with Articles 6.1 and 
6.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because th e deemed waiver negates a party's ample 
opportunity to present evidence and full opportuni ty to defend its interests as required by 
Article 6.1 and 6.2; and  
• found  that the Panel, in the course of arriving at  its conclusions on waivers (points 4 and 5 
above), did not fail to meet its obligations unde r Article 11 of the DSU to "make an objective 
assessment of the matter before it, including an objective assessment of the facts of the case";  
with respect to the issues appealed by Argentina:  
• upheld  the Panel's finding that the disciplines in  Article 3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement 
regarding original determination of injury do  not apply to investigating authorities when 
making determinations in sunset reviews. The Appellate Body further found  that the Panel did 
not err in its interpretation of the term "i njury" in Article 11.3 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement, or in its analysis with respect to  the factors that must be considered by an 
investigating authority when making a determination in a sunset review;  
• upheld  the Panel's finding that investigating authorities are not prohibited, by virtue of Article 
11.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, from "cumulating" the effects of likely dumped 
imports when determining whether injury to th e domestic industry would be likely to continue 
or recur after termination of anti-dumpi ng duties. The Appellate Body further upheld  the 
Panel's finding that the conditions applicable to such "cumulation" set out in Article 3.3 of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement do not apply in the cont ext of sunset reviews under Article 11.3;  
• found  that the Panel did not err in its interpretati on of the term "likely" in Article 11.3 of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement, and upheld  the Panel's finding that the determination made by the 
United States International Trade Commission (" USITC"), with respect to the likelihood of 
continuation or recurrence of injury to th e domestic industry upon termination of anti-
dumping duties, was not inconsistent with Ar ticle 11.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement;  
• upheld  the Panel's finding that Sections 752(a)(1) and 752(a)(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930—
which allow the USITC to consider the like lihood of injury recurring "within a reasonably 
foreseeable time"—are not inconsistent with Article 11.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. 
The Appellate Body further upheld  the Panel's finding that the United States did not act 
inconsistently with Article 11.3 of the Anti-Du mping Agreement in the application of these 
provisions by the USITC in the sunset review determination underlying this dispute; and  
• declined to rule  on Argentina's conditional appeal of two issues, one under the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement relating to the "practice" of the US ODC in sunset reviews, and the other under the 
GATT 1994 relating to the administration of sunset review laws by the USDOC.  
At its meeting on 17 December 2004, the DSB adopt ed the Appellate Body report and the Panel 
report, as modified by the Appellate Body report.  
13. WT/DS267 – United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton 
Complaint by Brazil. On 27 September 2002 Brazil re quested consultations with the US regarding 
prohibited and actionable subsidies provided to US producers, users and/or exporters of upland cotton, 
as well as legislation, regulations, statutory inst ruments and amendments thereto providing such 
subsidies (including export credits), grants, and any other assistance to the US producers, users and 
exporters of upland cotton ("US upland cotton industry").   WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page 77 
 
 
 Brazil contended that these measures were inconsis tent with the obligations of the US under the 
following provisions: Articles 5(c), 6.3(b), (c) and (d), 3.1(a) (including item (j) of the Illustrative List of Export Subsidies in Annex I), 3.1(b), and 3.2 of  the SCM Agreement; Articles 3.3, 7.1, 8, 9.1 and 
10.1 of the Agreement on Agriculture; and Article III:4 of GATT 1994. Brazil was of the view that 
the US statutes, regulations, and administrative pr ocedures listed above were inconsistent with these 
provisions as such and as applied.  
On 9 October and 11 October 2002, Zimbabwe and India, respectively, requested to join the 
consultations. On 14 October 2002, Argentina and Ca nada requested to join the consultations. The 
United States informed the DSB that it had accepted the requests of Argentina and India to join the 
consultations.  
On 6 February 2003, Brazil request ed the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 19 February 
2003, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request by Brazil, the DSB 
established a Panel at its meeting on 18 March 2003 . Argentina, Canada, China, Chinese Taipei, the 
EC, India, Pakistan and Venezuela reserved their third-party rights to participate in the Panel's 
proceedings. At that meeting, the Chairman of th e DSB announced that he continued to consult with 
Brazil and the US on the issue of appointing a DSB representative to facilitate the information-
gathering process, pursuant to the Annex V pro cedures under the SCM Agreement, which had been 
invoked by Brazil in its panel request. On 24 March 200 3, Benin reserved its third-party rights. On 25 
March 2003, Australia reserved its third-party righ ts. On 26 March 2003, Pa raguay reserved its third-
party rights. On 28 March 2003, New Zealand reserved its third-party rights. On 4 April 2003, Chad 
reserved its third-party rights. On 9 May 2003, Braz il requested the Director-General to compose the 
panel. On 19 May 2003, the Director-General composed the panel.  
On 17 November 2003, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that it would not be able to 
complete its work in six months due to the comple xity of the matter and that the Panel expected to 
issue its final report to the parties in May 2004.  
On 8 September 2004, the report of the Panel was circulated to Members. The Panel found that:  
• agricultural export credit guarantees are subject  to WTO export subsidy disciplines and three 
United States export credit guarantee programme s are prohibited export subsidies which have 
no Peace Clause protection and are in violation of those disciplines;  
• the United States also grants several other pr ohibited subsidies in respect of cotton;  
• United States' domestic support programmes in respect of cotton are not protected by the 
Peace Clause, and certain of these programmes resu lt in serious prejudice to Brazil's interests 
in the form of price suppression in the world market.  
In respect of the prohibited subsidies, the Pane l recommended that the United States withdraw the 
measures found to be inconsistent without delay, that  is, within six months of the date of adoption of 
the Panel report by the DSB or 1 July 2005 (which ever is earlier).  In respect of the actionable 
subsidies, the Panel referred to Artic le 7.8 of the SCM Agreement.   
On 18 October 2004, United States notified its inten tion to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the Panel. On 16 D ecember 2004, the Chairman of the Appellate Body 
informed the DSB that due to the numerous and comp lex issues arising in this  dispute, the Appellate 
Body would not be able to circulate its Report by Friday, 17 December 2004. The Chairman then 
stated in the letter that in the light of the numer ous and complex issues raised, the increased burden on 
the Appellate Body as well as the translation services, the intervening holiday period, and the fact that WT/DS/OV/25 
Page 78  
 
 the Appellate Body expected to be considering tw o or three other appeals in the coming weeks, the 
Appellate Body estimated that the Appellate Body Re port in this appeal would be circulated to WTO 
Members no later than Thursday, 3 March 2005.  
On 3 March 2005, the Appellate Body  Report was circulated to Members. The Appellate Body found 
inter alia as follows:  
(a) As regards the applicability of the Peace Clause
 to this dispute, the Appellate Body:  
• upholds  the Panel's finding that two challenged measures (production flexibility contract and 
direct payments) are related to the type of production undertaken after the base period and thus are not green box measures conforming fu lly to paragraph 6(b) of Annex 2 to the 
Agreement on Agriculture; and, therefore, are not exempt, by virtue of Article 13(a)(ii), from 
actions under Article XVI of GATT 1994 and Part III of the SCM Agreement;  
• modifies  the Panel's interpretation of the phrase "s upport to a specific commodity" in Article 
13(b)(ii), but upholds the Panel's conclusion that the ch allenged domestic support measures 
granted support to upland cotton; and  
• upholds  the Panel's finding that the challenged domestic support measures granted, between 
1999 and 2002, support to upland cotton in excess of that decided during the 1992 benchmark 
period and, therefore, that these measures are not exempt, by virtue of Article 13(b)(ii), from actions under Article XVI:1 of the GATT 199 4 and Part III of the SCM Agreement;  
(b) As regards serious prejudice
, the Appellate Body:  
• upholds  the Panel's finding that the effect of the challenged price-contingent subsidies 
(marketing loan program payments, user marketing (Step 2) payments, market loss assistance 
payments, and counter-cyclical payments) are significant price suppression within the 
meaning of Article 6.3(c) of the SC M Agreement, by in turn upholding  the Panel's findings 
that: (i) the "same market" in Article 6.3(c) ma y be a "world market", a "world market" for 
upland cotton exists, and "the A-Index can be taken to reflect a world price in the world 
market for upland cotton"; (ii) "a causal link ex ists" between the price-contingent subsidies 
and significant price suppression, and that this link is not attenuated by other factors raised by 
the United States; (iii) it was not required to  quantify precisely the benefit conferred on 
upland cotton by the price-contingent subsidies;  and (iv) the effect of the price-contingent 
subsidies for marketing years 1999 to 2002 is significant price suppression in the same period;  
• finds  that the Panel set out the findings of fact , the applicability of relevant provisions, and 
the basic rationale behind this finding, as required by Article 12.7 of the DSU; and  
• finds  it unnecessary to rule on the interpretation of the term "world market share" in Article 
6.3(d) of the SCM Agreement and neither upholds  nor reverses the Panel's finding that this 
term means world supply share;  
(c) As regards user marketing (Step 2) payments , the Appellate Body:  
• upholds  the Panel's findings that Step 2 payments to domestic users of United States upland 
cotton, under Section 1207(a) of the FSRI Act of 2002, are subsidies contingent on the use of domestic over imported goods that are inconsistent with Articles 3.1(b) and 3.2 of the SCM 
Agreement; and   WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page 79 
 
 
 • upholds  the Panel's findings that Step 2 payments to exporters of United States upland cotton, 
pursuant to Section 1207(a) of the FSRI Act of 2002, are subsidies contingent upon export 
performance within the meaning of Article 9.1( a) of the Agreement on Agriculture that are 
inconsistent with Articles 3.3 and 8 of that Ag reement and Articles 3.1(a) and 3.2 of the SCM 
Agreement;  
(d) As regards export credit guarantee programs , the Appellate Body:  
• in a majority opinion, upholds  the Panel's finding that Article 10.2 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture does not exempt export credit gua rantees from the export subsidy disciplines in 
Article 10.1 of that Agreement;  
• one Member of the Division, in a separate opinion, expresses the contrary view that Article 
10.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture exempt s export credit guarantees from the disciplines 
of Article 10.1 of that Agreement until international disciplines are agreed upon;  
• finds  that the Panel did not improperly apply the burden of proof in finding that the United 
States' export credit guarantee programs are prohi bited export subsidies under Article 3.1(a) 
of the SCM Agreement and are consequently incons istent with Article 3.2 of that Agreement;  
• upholds  the Panel's finding that "the United States export credit guarantee programmes at 
issue—GSM 102, GSM 103 and SCGP—constitute  a per se export subsidy within the 
meaning of item (j) of the Illustrative List of Export Subsidies in Annex I of the SCM Agreement", and upholds
 the Panel's findings that these export credit guarantee programs are 
export subsidies for purposes of Article 3.1(a) of the SCM Agreement and are inconsistent 
with Articles 3.1(a) and 3.2 of that Agreement; and  
• finds  that the Panel did not err in exercising judi cial economy in respect of Brazil's allegation 
that the United States' export credit guarantee programs are prohibited export subsidies, under 
Article 3.1(a) of the SCM Agreement, because th ey confer a "benefit" within the meaning of 
Article 1.1 of that Agreement.   
At its meeting on 21 March 2005, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report a nd the Panel report, as 
modified by the Appellate Body report.  
14. WT/DS265, WT/DS266, WT/DS283 – European Communities – Export Subsidies on 
Sugar 
Complaints by Australia (WT/DS265), Brazil (WT/DS266) and Thailand (WT/DS283). On 27 
September 2002, Australia and Brazil requested consultations with the European Communities 
concerning the export subsidies provided by the EC in the framework of its Common Organisation of 
the Market for the sugar sector. The requests con cerned Council Regulation (EC) No. 1260/2001 of 
19 June 2001 on the EC's common organization of the markets in the sugar sector, and all other 
legislation, regulations, administrative policies and other instruments relating to the EC regime for 
sugar and sugar containing products including the ru les adopted pursuant to the procedure referred to 
in Article 42(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 126 0/2001, and any other provision related thereto. 
On 14 March 2003, Thailand requested consultations  with the European Communities on the same 
matter.  
Australia contended that the EC provides under the a bove measures export subsid ies in excess of the 
export subsidy commitments that it has specified in Section II of Part IV of its Schedule of 
Concessions, in relation to "C sugar" and an amount of 1.6 million tons of sugar per year and possibly WT/DS/OV/25 
Page 80  
 
 also sugar in incorporated products. It further alleg es that the EC may also be paying a higher per unit 
subsidy on incorporated products than on the primar y product. In addition, u nder the EC sugar regime 
refiners are paid a subsidy, in the form of the in tervention price, for refining EC sugar which is not 
available to imported sugar, thus affording l ess favourable treatment to imported products.  
According to Australia, the regulation and related instruments and measures taken thereunder appear 
to be inconsistent with, at least:  
• Articles 3.3, 8, 9.1, 10.1 and 11 of the Agreement on Agriculture,  
• Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the SCM Agreement; and 
• Articles III:4 and XVI of GATT 1994.  
According to Brazil, the EC provides, under Council Regulation (EC) No. 1260/2001, export 
subsidies for sugar and sugar containing products above its reduction commitment levels specified in 
Section II of Part IV of its Schedule of Concessions . Brazil explained that the EC intervention price 
system for sugar guarantees a high price for the s ugar that is produced within certain production 
quotas (A and B quotas). Sugar produced in excess of  these quotas (so-called C sugar) cannot be sold 
internally in the year in which it is produced: it mu st be exported or carried over to fulfil the following 
year's production quotas. Under the EC's common orga nization of the sugar market and its regulatory 
framework, exporters of C sugar are able to export C s ugar at prices below its total cost of production.  
In addition, according to the EC's Schedule for s ugar and the agricultural notifications submitted by 
the EC to the WTO for marketing years 1995/1996 through 2000/2001, the EC provides export subsidies in excess of its commitments to approximate ly 1.6 million tons of sugar per year. The export 
subsidies provided by the EC (referred to in the EC Council Regulation (EC) No. 1260/2001 as 
"export refunds") cover the difference between the world market price and the high prices in the 
Community for the products in question, thus enabling those products to be exported.  
Brazil also believed that the EC sugar regime acco rds less favourable treatme nt to imported sugar and 
is thus in violation of Article III:4 of the GATT 1994.  
Brazil claimed that, by providing export subsidi es for sugar in excess of its reduction commitment 
levels the EC is acting inconsistently with at least the requirements of:  
• Articles 3.3, 8, 9.1(a) and (c), and 10.1 of the Agreement on Agriculture;  
• Articles 3.1(a) and 3.2 of the SCM Agreement; and  
•  Articles III:4 and XVI of GATT 1994.  
According to Thailand:  
• The EC sugar regime accords imported sugar a le ss favourable treatment than that accorded to 
domestic sugar and provides for subsidies con tingent upon the use of domestic over imported 
products;  
• The EC sugar regime accords export subsid ies above its reduction commitment levels 
specified in Section II of Part IV of the EC's  Schedule to the sugar produced in excess of its 
production quotas (so-called C sugar);   WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page 81 
 
 
 • The EC provides export subsidies (known as "e xport refunds") that cover the difference 
between the world market price and the high pri ces in the EC for the products in question, 
thus enabling those products to be exported.  
Thailand considered that the above subsidies are in consistent with the EC's obligations under:  
• Article III:4 of GATT 1994;  
• Articles 3.1(a), 3.1(b) and 3.2 of the SCM Agreement; and  
• Articles 3.3, 8, 9.1 and 10.1 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
In the dispute WT/DS265, Barbados, Belize, Brazil , Canada, Colombia, Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Fiji, 
Guyana, India, Jamaica, Kenya,  Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, St . Kitts and Nevis, Swaziland and 
Zimbabwe requested to join the consultations. On 24 October 2002, the EC informed the DSB that it 
had accepted the requests of Barbados, Belize, Brazil,  Canada, Colombia, Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Fiji, 
Guyana, India, Jamaica, Kenya,  Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, St . Kitts and Nevis, Swaziland and 
Zimbabwe to join the consultations.  
In the dispute WT/DS266, Australia, Barbados, Beli ze, Canada, Colombia, Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, Fiji, 
Guyana, India, Jamaica, Kenya,  Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, St . Kitts and Nevis, Swaziland and 
Zimbabwe requested to join the consultations. On 24 October 2002, the EC informed the DSB that it 
had accepted the requests of Australia, Barbados, Be lize, Canada, Colombia, Congo, Côte d'Ivoire, 
Fiji, Guyana, India, Jamaica, Kenya, Madagascar, Ma lawi, Mauritius, St. Kitts and Nevis, Swaziland 
and Zimbabwe to join the consultations.  
On 9 July 2003, Australia, Brazil and Thailand each requested the establishment of a panel. At its 
meeting on 21 July 2003, the DSB deferred the estab lishment of the panels. Further to second requests 
to establish a panel from Australia, Brazil and Thailand, the DSB established a single panel at its 
meeting on 29 August 2003. Barba dos, Canada, China, Colombia, Ja maica, Mauritius, New Zealand, 
Trinidad and Tobago and the US reserved their third-party rights. On 1 September 2003, Belize, 
Cuba, Fiji and Guyana reserved their third-pa rty rights. On 2 September 2003, Paraguay and 
Swaziland reserved their third-part y rights. On 5 September 2003, India, Madagascar and Malawi 
reserved their third-party rights. On 8 Septembe r 2003, Australia, Brazil, St. Kitts and Nevis, 
Tanzania and Thailand reserved thei r third-party rights. On 26 Se ptember 2003, Kenya reserved its 
third-party right. On 5 November 2003, Côte d'Ivoire reserved its third-party right.  
On 15 December 2003, Australia, Brazil and Thailand requested the Director-General to determine 
the composition of the panel. On 23 December 2003, th e Director-General compo sed the Panel. On 23 
June 2004, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DS B that it would not be able to complete its work 
in six months due to the complexity of the matter a nd that the Panel expected to complete its work by 
early September 2004.  
On 15 October 2004, the Panel circulated to Members its  separate but identical reports with respect to 
WT/DS283, WT/DS266 and WT/DS265 respectively. The Panel found, inter alia, that:  
• the European Communities' annual budgetary outlay and quantity commitment levels for 
exports of subsidized sugar were  determined with reference to the entries specified in Section 
II, Part IV of its Schedule and the content of Footnote 1 in relation to these entries was of no legal effect and did not enlarge or otherwise modify the European Communities' specified commitment levels.  WT/DS/OV/25 
Page 82  
 
 • the European Communities' exports of suga r had exceeded its annual commitment levels 
since 1995, and in particular since the marketing year 2000/2001.  
• producers/exporters of "ACP/India equivale nt sugar" that exceeded the European 
Communities' reduction commitment levels receive d subsidies within the meaning of Article 
9.1(a) of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
• producers/exporters of C sugar that exceed ed the European Communities' reduction 
commitment levels received payments on export by virtue of governmental action, within the 
meaning of Article 9.1(c) of the Agreement on Agriculture.  
In light of Article 10.3 of the Agreement on Agricu lture, which provides that where a Member exports 
an agricultural product in quantities that exceed its quantity commitment level, that Member will be 
treated as if it has granted WTO-inconsistent export subsidies for the excess quantities, unless the 
Member presents adequate evidence to "establish" the contrary, the Panel reached the conclusion that 
the European Communities had not demonstrated that the exports of C sugar and "ACP/India equivalent" sugar in excess of its annual co mmitment levels were not subsidized.  
The Panel concluded that the European Commu nities, through its sugar regime, had acted 
inconsistently with its obligati ons under Articles 3.3 and 8 of the Agreement on Agriculture, by 
providing export subsidies within the meaning of Article 9.1(a) and (c) of the Agreement on Agriculture in excess of the quantity commitment level and the budgetary outlay commitment level 
specified in Section II, Part IV of Schedule CXL.  
At its meeting of 13 December 2004, following a re quest from all the parties, the DSB agreed to 
extend the 60-day period for the adoption of the Panel report until 31 January 2005. On 13 January 
2005, the European Communities notified its intenti on to appeal certain issues of law and legal 
interpretations developed by the Panel.  
On 28 April 2005, the report of the Appellate Body  was circulated. The Appellate Body found that: 
• Footnote 1 does not enlarge or otherwise modify the European Communities' commitment 
levels as specified in its Schedule; Foot note 1 does not contain a commitment to limit 
subsidization of exports of ACP/ India equivalent sugar; and th at Footnote 1 is inconsistent 
with the Agreement on Agriculture, becau se it does not contain a budgetary outlay 
commitment and does not subject subsidized exports of ACP/India equivalent sugar to 
reduction commitments. 
• in the particular circumstances of this dispute, th ere is a "payment" in the form of a transfer of 
financial resources from the high revenues resu lting from sales of A and B sugar, to the 
export production of C sugar, within the mean ing of Article 9.1(c) of the Agreement on 
Agriculture; such payments were "on the expor t" within the meaning of Article 9.1(c), 
because C sugar, under European Communities' law,  must be exported; and that the European 
Communities had acted inconsistently with Articles 3.3 and 8 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture by providing export subsidies in exce ss of its commitment levels as specified in 
its Schedule.  
• the Panel erred in not ruling on the Complain ing Parties' claims under the SCM Agreement, 
because the Panel's ruling under the Agreemen t on Agriculture was in sufficient to fully 
resolve the dispute, especially in relation to  implementation of a remedy; but that because 
there was insufficient material before it, it was not in a position to complete the legal analysis  WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page 83 
 
 
 and to examine the Complaining Parties' clai ms under the SCM Agreement that were left 
unaddressed by the Panel. 
At its meeting of 19 May 2005, the DSB adopted th e Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as 
modified by the Appellate Body report.  
15. WT/DS264 – United States – Final Dumping Determination on Softwood Lumber from 
Canada 
Complaint by Canada. On 13 September 2002, Canada  requested consultations under Article 4.8 of 
the DSU (urgency procedure) with  the US concerning the final affirmative determination of sales at 
less than fair value (dumping) with respect to certain softwood lumber products from Canada (Inv. 
No. A-122-838) announced by the US Departme nt of Commerce (DOC) on 21 March 2002 pursuant 
to section 735 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as ame nded on 22 May 2002 (Final Determination). The 
measures at issue include the initiation of the invest igation, the conduct of the investigation and the 
Final Determination.  
Canada considered these measures and, in par ticular, the determinati ons made and methodologies 
adopted therein by the DOC under authority of the United States Tariff Act of 1930, to violate 
Articles 1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.6, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.8, 6.1, 6.2, 6.4, 6.9 and 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement and Articles VI and X:3(a) of the GATT 1994.  
On 6 December 2002, Canada requested the establishm ent of a panel. At its meeting of 19 December 
2002, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request by Canada, a panel 
was established by the DSB at its meeting on 8 Janua ry 2003. The EC and India reserved their third-
party rights. On 15 January 2003, Japan reserved it s third-party rights. On 25 February 2003, the 
Panel was composed.  
On 25 August 2003, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that due to the complexity of the 
matter, the Panel would not be able to complete its work in six months. The Panel expected to issue its 
final report to the parties in December 2003. On 2 December 2003, the Chairman of the Panel 
informed the DSB that the Panel e xpected to issue its final report to the parties in February 2004.  
On 13 April 2004, the Panel report was circulated to Members. The Panel found that, in its final 
dumping determination, the US Department of  Commerce (DOC) failed to comply with the 
requirements of Articles 2.4.2 of the AD Agreemen t because the DOC did not take into account all 
export transactions by applying the "zeroing" met hodology when calculating the margin of dumping. 
(One member of the Panel issued a dissenting opini on regarding the finding on "zeroing".) The Panel 
found that all other claims s ubmitted by Canada failed.  
On 13 May 2004, 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 8 July 
2004, the Chairman of the Appellate Body informed the DSB that it would not be possible for the Appellate Body to complete its work within 60-da y period due to the time required for completion 
and translation of the Report. The Appellate Body expected to complete its work no later than 11 
August 2004.  
On 11 August 2004, the Appellate Body Report was circulated to Members. The Appellate Body:  
• upheld  the Panel's finding that the United States had acted inconsistently with the Anti-
Dumping Agreement by calculating margins of dumping on the basis of a methodology incorporating the practice of "zeroing";  WT/DS/OV/25 
Page 84  
 
 • reversed  the Panel's finding that the United States did not act inconsistently with the Anti-
Dumping Agreement when calculating the amount of financial expense attributable to the 
production of softwood lumber for Abitibi,  one of the Canadian companies under 
investigation. Although the Appellate Body re versed the Panel on this issue, it was not 
required itself to rule on whether the United St ates had acted inconsistently with its WTO 
obligations in this regard; and  
• upheld  the Panel's finding that the United States did not act inconsistently with certain 
provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement when calculating the amount for by-product revenue from the "sale" of wood chips for Tembec, another Canadian company under 
investigation. The Appellate Body did not dist urb the Panel's finding that the United States 
had not acted in a biased, non-objective, or other than even-handed manner.  
At its meeting on 31 August 2004, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body repor t and the Panel report, 
as modified by the Appellate Body report.  
16. WT/DS257 – United States – Final Countervailing Duty Determination with respect to 
certain Softwood Lumber from Canada 
Complaint by Canada. On 3 May 2002, Canada re quested consultations with the US. The request 
concerned the final affirmative countervailing du ty determination by the US Department of 
Commerce (File No. C-122839) issued on 25 March 2002, with respect to cer tain softwood lumber 
from Canada. The measures at issue include the initia tion and conduct of the investigation, the final 
determination, provision of expedited reviews, a nd other matters related to these measures. Canada 
contended that these measures were inconsistent with , and violate US obligations under Articles 1, 2, 
10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 19, 22 and 32.1 of the SCM Ag reement and Articles VI:3 and X:3 of GATT 1994.  
On 18 July 2002, Canada requested the establishmen t of a panel. At its meeting on 29 July 2002, the 
DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. On 19 August 2002, Canada requested the withdrawal of 
its previous request for the establishment of a panel and submitted a new request. In particular, 
Canada claimed that in initiating the Lumber IV i nvestigation, the United States had violated Articles 
10, 11.4 and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement. In all th e other claims, the new request corresponded to the 
previous one (18 July 2002). At its meeting on  30 August 2002, the DSB deferred the establishment 
of a panel. At its meeting on 1 October 2002, th e DSB established a panel. The EC, India and Japan 
reserved their third-party rights to participate in  the panel proceedings. On  8 November 2002, the 
panel was composed.  
On 29 August 2003, the Panel report was circulated  to Members. The Panel found that the USDOC 
Final Countervailing Duty Determina tion was inconsistent with Articles 10, 14, 14(d) and 32.1 SCM 
Agreement and Article VI:3 of GATT 1994. The Pane l decided to apply judicial economy as regards 
Canada's claims under Article 19.4 SCM Agreemen t and Article VI:3 of GATT 1994 concerning the 
methodologies used to calculate the subsidy rate; and its  claims of violation of the procedural rules of 
evidence set forth in Article 12 SCM Agreement. Furthe r to Canada's statement at the first substantive 
meeting of the Panel with the parties that it did not consider it appropriate to press its claims under 
Articles 10, 11.4 and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement c oncerning the initiation of the investigation, the 
Panel also refrain from addressing and making a ruling on these claims. Accordingly, the Panel recommended that the DSB requests the United States to  bring its measure into conformity with its 
obligations under the SCM Agreement and GATT 1994.  
On 2 October 2003, the United States notified its d ecision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain 
issues of law covered in the Panel Report and certa in legal interpretations developed by the Panel. 
However, on 3 October 2003, the United States withdr ew its notice of appeal for scheduling reasons,  WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page 85 
 
 
 although the withdrawal is conditional on the US right  to file a new notice of appeal within the 
timeframe permitted by the DSU.  
On 21 October 2003, the United States notified its deci sion to re-file its appeal to the Appellate Body 
of certain issues of law covered in the Panel Report and certain legal interpre tations developed by the 
Panel.  
On 17 December 2003, the Chairman of the Appella te Body informed the DSB that the Appellate 
Body would not be able to circulate its Report with in the 60-day period due to the time required for 
completion and translation of the Report and it estimated that the Appellate Body Report would be circulate to WTO Members no later than 19 January 2004.  
On 19 January 2004, the Appellate Body Report was circulated to Members. The Appellate Body:  
• upheld the Panel's finding that the US had correc tly determined that harvesting rights granted 
by Canadian provincial governments in respect  of standing timber constituted the provision of 
goods under Article 1.1 of the SCM Agreement; 
• reversed the Panel's interpretation of Article  14(d) of the SCM Agreement and the Panel's 
finding that the US had improperly determined the existence and amount of the "benefit" 
resulting from the financial contribution provided.  Then the Appellate Body found that it was 
unable to complete the legal analysis of whethe r the US had correctly determined benefit in 
this investigation, due to insufficient factual findings by the Panel and insufficient undisputed 
facts in the Panel record; and  
• upheld the Panel's finding that the US had acted  inconsistently with provisions of the SCM 
Agreement and the GATT 1994 by failing to anal yze whether subsidies were passed through 
in sales of logs by sawmill-owning harvesters to unrelated lumber producers. On the other 
hand, the Appellate Body reversed the Panel's fi ndings that the US acted inconsistently with 
its WTO obligations by failing to consider whet her subsidies were passed through in sales of 
primary lumber by sawmills to unrelated lu mber remanufacturers, because both primary and 
remanufactured lumbers were products subject  to USDOC's aggregate investigation.  
At its meeting on 17 February 2004, the DSB adopted  the Appellate Body report and the Panel report, 
as modified by the Appellate Body report.  
17. 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).  
On 7 March 2002, the European Communities requ ested consultations with the United States 
regarding the definitive safeguard measures imposed by the US in the form of an increase in duties on 
imports of certain flat steel, hot-rolled bar, cold-fi nished bar, rebar, certain welded tubular products, 
carbon and alloy fittings, stainless steel bar, stainless steel rod, tin mill products and stainless steel 
wire and in the form of a tariff rate quota on im ports of slabs effective as of 20 March 2002. The 
European Communities considered that the aforem entioned US measures were in breach of US 
obligations under the Agreement on Safeguards and GATT 1994, and in particular Articles 2.1, 2.2 
,3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 5.2, 7.1 and 9.1 of the Agreement on Sa feguards and Articles I:1, XIII and WT/DS/OV/25 
Page 86  
 
 XIX:1 of GATT 1994. The European Communities also reserved all its rights regarding the pursuit of 
the remedies provided for under the Agreement on Safeguards and the DSU.  
On 14 March 2002, Japan and Korea requested to join the consultations. On 15 March 2002, 
Switzerland and Canada also requested to join th e consultations. On 20 March 2002, Venezuela also 
requested to join the consultations. On 21 Marc h 2002, Norway and China requested to join the 
consultations as well. On 22 March 2002, Mexico al so requested to join the consultations. On 25 
March 2002, New Zealand also requested to join th e consultations. The US informed the DSB that it 
had accepted the requests of Canada, China, Jap an, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, 
Switzerland and Venezuela to join the consultations.  
On 20 March 2002, Japan (WT/DS249) requested consultations with the United States also with 
regard to the definitive safeguard measures imposed by the US on the imports of certain steel products 
and claimed violations of Articles 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 4. 1, 4.2, 5.1, 7.1, 7.4. 8.1, 12.1, 12.2, 12.3 of the 
Agreement on Safeguards and Articles I:1, II, X: 3, XIII and XIX:2 of GATT 1994. On 27 March, 
Norway requested to join the consultations. On 5 Ap ril, Mexico requested to join the consultations. 
On 9 April 2002, New Zealand requested to join the consultations. The US info rmed the DSB that it 
had accepted the requests of Mexico, New Zeala nd and Norway to join the consultations.  
On 20 March 2002, Korea (WT/DS251) requested cons ultations with the United States also with 
regard to the definitive safeguard measures imposed by the US on the imports of certain steel products 
and the related laws of the US, including Secti ons 201 and 202 of the Trade Act of 1974 and Section 
311 of the NAFTA Implementation Act. Korea claimed viola tions of Articles 2.1, 2.2, 3, 4, 5, 7.1, 7.4, 
8.1, 9.1 and 12 of the Agreement on Safeguards, Articles X:3 and XIX:1 of GATT 1994 and Article 
XVI:4 of the Marrakesh Agreement. On 27 March 2002, Japan and Norway requested to join the 
consultations. On 5 April, Mexico and New Zealan d requested to join the consultations. The US 
informed the DSB that it had accepted the requests of Japan, Mexico, New Zealand and Norway to 
join the consultations.  
On 26 March 2002, China (WT/DS252) requested c onsultations with the United States also with 
regard to the definitive safeguard measures imposed by the US on imports of certain steel products 
and claimed violations of Articles 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 5.2, 7.1, 8.1, 9.1 and 12 of the Agreement on Safeguards and Articles I:1, II, X: 3, XIX:1 and XIX:2 of GATT 1994. On 4 April 
2002, Japan requested to join the consultations. On 5 April 2002, New Zealand also requested to join 
the consultations. The US informed the DSB that  it had accepted the requests of Japan and New 
Zealand to join the consultations.  
On 3 April 2002, Switzerland (WT/DS253) also requ ested consultations with the United States with 
regard to the definitive safeguard measures imposed by the US on imports of certain steel products 
and claimed violations of Articles 2.1, 2.2, 3, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 7.1, 8.1 and 12 of the Agreement on Safeguards and Articles I:1 and XIX:1 of GATT 1994.  On 11 April 2002, New Zealand requested to 
join the consultations. On 15 April 2002, Japan requ ested to join the consultations. The US informed 
the DSB that it had accepted the requests of Japan  and New Zealand to join consultations.  
On 4 April 2002, Norway (WT/DS254) requested cons ultations with the United States with regard to 
the same safeguard measures imposed by the US on imports of certain steel products and claimed 
violations of Articles 3, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 7, 8.1,  9.1 and 12 of the Agreemen t on Safeguards and Articles 
I:1, II, X:3 and XIX of GATT 1994. On 11 Apr il 2002, New Zealand requested to join the 
consultations. On 15 April 2002, Japan requested to join the consultations. The US informed the DSB 
that it had accepted the requests of Japan a nd New Zealand to join consultations.   WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page 87 
 
 
 On 14 May 2002, New Zealand (WT/DS258) requested  consultations with the United States with 
regard to the same safeguard measures on steel impo sed by the US and claimed violations of Articles 
2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 7, 8.1 and 12 of the Agreement on Safeguards and Articles I:1, X and XIX:1 of GATT 1994. On 24 May 2002, the European Communities requested to join the consultations. On 27 May 2002, Japan requested to join the consultations. On 30 May 2002, Korea 
requested to join the consultations. On 31 May 2002,  Norway, China and Mexico  requested to join the 
consultations. The US informed the DSB that it had accepted the requests of China, the EC, Japan, 
Korea, Mexico and Norway to join consultations.  
On 21 May 2002, Brazil (WT/DS259) requested consu ltations with the United States with regard to 
the same definitive safeguard measu res imposed by the US on imports of certain steel products. On 24 
May 2002, the European Communities requested to join the consultations. On 27 May 2002, Japan 
requested to join the consultations. On 30 May 2002,  Korea requested to join the consultations. On 31 
May 2002, Norway, China and Mexico requested to join the consultations. The US informed the DSB 
that it had accepted the requests of China, the EC , Japan, Korea, Mexico and Norway to join 
consultations.  
Further to individual requests for the establishment of a panel submitted by the eight complainants at 
the following DSB meetings:  
• 3 June 2002 – the EC claimed that the US measures violated Articles 2.1, 3.1, 4.2(a), 4.2(b), 
4.2(c) and 5.1 of the Agreement on Safe guards and Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994;  
• 14 June 2002 – Japan claimed that the US measu res violated Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the 
Agreement on Safeguards and Artic les I:1, X:3 and XIX:1 of GATT 1994. Korea claimed that 
the US measures violated Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 7.1, 8.1, 9.1 and 12 of the Agreement on 
Safeguards and Articles X:3, XIII and XIX of GATT 1994;  
• 24 June 2002 – China claimed that the US measures violated Articles 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 
5.2, 8.1, 9.1 and 12 of the Agreement on Safe guards and Articles I:1, II and XIX of GATT 
1994. Switzerland claimed that the US measures viol ated Articles 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 4, 5.1 and 8.1 
of the Agreement on Safeguards and Article XI X:1 of GATT 1994. Norway claimed that the 
US measures violated Articles 2, 3, 4, 5.1, 7.1 and 9.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards and Articles I:1, X:3(a) and XIX of GATT 1994;  
• 8 July 2002 – New Zealand claimed that the US measures violated Articles 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 4.2, 
5.1, 7 and 8.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards and Articles X:3(a) and XIX:1 of GATT 1994;  
• 29 July 2002 – Brazil claimed that the US measures violated Articles 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 4 and 5 of 
the Agreement on Safeguards and Articl es I:1, X:3 and XIX:1 of GATT 1994;  
The DSB established a single Panel, pursuant to an  agreement between the parties and in accordance 
with Article 9.1 of the DSU.  
The Members which had reserved their third-party ri ghts in the Panels established at the request of 
these parties were also considered as third parties in the single Panel. Canada, Chinese Taipei, Cuba, 
Malaysia, Mexico, Thailand, Turkey and Venezuela ha ve reserved their rights to participate in the 
Panel proceedings as a third party.  
On 15 July 2002, the DSB was notified of a proce dural agreement between the United States and the 
European Communities, Japan, Korea, China, Sw itzerland, Norway and New Zealand. On 18 July 
2002, the DSB was notified of a procedural agre ement between the United States and Brazil.  WT/DS/OV/25 
Page 88  
 
 On 15 July 2002, the European Communities, Japan , Korea, China, Switzerland, Norway and New 
Zealand requested the Director-Gener al to determine the composition of the Panel. On 25 July 2002, 
the Panel was composed.  
On 23 October 2002, Malaysia decided to withdraw  as a third party from the panel proceedings.  
On 20 February 2003, the Chairman of the Panel in formed the DSB that the Panel would not be able 
to complete its work in six months due to the volume, complexities and sensitivity of the legal and 
factual questions that had been raised. The Panel hoped  to complete its work by the end of April 2003.  
The Panel circulated its Reports1 to Members on 11 July 2003. The Panel concluded that all the 
United States' safeguard measures at issue were inco nsistent with at least one of the following WTO 
pre-requisites for the imposition of a safeguard measure: lack of demonstration of (i) unforeseen 
developments; (ii) increased imports; (iii) causation;  and (iv) parallelism. The Panel thus requested 
the United States to bring the relevant safeguard measures into conformity with its obligations under 
the Agreement on Safeguards and GATT 1994..  
On 11 August 2003, the US notified its decision to app eal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law 
covered in the Panel Report a nd certain legal interpretations  developed by the Panel.  
On 8 October 2003, the Chairman of the Appellate Body informed the DSB that the Appellate Body 
would not be able to circulate its Report within 60 days due to the time required for completion and 
translation of the Report and that it estimated that the Appellate Body Report in this appeal would be 
circulated to WTO Members no later than 10 November 2003.  
On 10 November 2003, the Appellate Body Report w as circulated to Members. The Appellate Body 
upheld 
the Panel's ultimate conclusions that each of the ten safeguard measures at issue in this dispute 
was inconsistent with the United States' obligati ons under Article XIX:1(a)  of the GATT 1994 and the 
Agreement on Safeguards. The Appellate Body reversed the Panel's findings that the US failed to 
provide a reasoned and adequate e xplanation on "increased imports" and on the existence of a "causal 
link" between increased imports and serious injury for two of the ten safeguard measures. Ultimately, 
however, even these measures were found to be in consistent with the WTO Agreement on other 
grounds.  
At its meeting on 10 December 2003, the DSB adopt ed the Appellate Body report and the Panel 
report, as modified by the Appellate Body report.  
                                                      
1 Although all complaints made by the eight co-complainants were considered in a single panel 
process, the United States requested the issuance of eight separate panel reports, claiming that to do otherwise 
would prejudice its WTO rights, including its right to settle the matter with individual complainants.  The complainants vigorously opposed this request, stating that  to grant it would only delay the panel process.  The 
Panel decided to issue its decisions in the form of "one document constituting eight Panel Reports".  Thus, for 
WTO purposes, this document is deemed to be eight sepa rate reports, relating to each of the eight complainants 
in this dispute.  The document comprises a common cover page, a common descriptive part and a common set 
of findings.  However, the document also contains conclusions and recommendations that are "particularized" 
for each of the complainants, with a separate number (sym bol) for each individual comp lainant.  In the Panel's 
view, this approach respected the rights of all parties while ensuring the prompt and effective settlement of the 
disputes.  WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page 89 
 
 
 18. WT/DS246 – European Communities – Conditions for the Granting of Tariff 
Preferences to Developing Countries 
Complaint by India. On 5 March 2002, India requ ested consultations with the EC concerning the 
conditions under which the EC accords tariff pr eferences to developing countries under its current 
scheme of generalized tariff preferences ("GSP scheme").  
India presented this request pursuant to Article 4 of the DSU, Article XXIII:1 of the GATT 1994 and 
paragraph 4(b) of the so called Enabling Clause.  
India considered that the tariff preferences accorded  by the EC under the special arrangements, (i) for 
combatting drug production and trafficking and (i i) for the protection of labour rights and the 
environment, create undue difficulties for India's exports to the EC, including for those under the 
general arrangements of the EC's GSP scheme, and nullify or impair the benefits accruing to India 
under the most favoured nation provisions of Article  I:1 of the GATT 1994 and paragraphs 2(a), 3(a) 
and 3(c) of the Enabling Clause.  
In India's view, the conditions under which the EC accorded tariff preferences under the special 
arrangements could not be reconciled with the requirements provided in paragraphs 2(a), 3(a) and 3(c) 
of the Enabling Clause.  
On 20 March 2002, Venezuela requested to be jo ined in the consultations. On 21 March 2002, 
Colombia requested to be joined in the consultations.  
On 6 December 2002, India requested  the establishment of a panel. At its meeting of 19 December 
2002, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 27 January 2003, the DSB 
established a Panel. During the meeting, Brazil, Co lombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, 
Guatemala, Honduras, Paraguay, Peru, Sri Lanka, Ve nezuela and the US reserved their third-party 
rights. On 28 January 2003, Nicaragua reserved it s third-party rights. On 29 January 2003, Panama 
reserved its third-party rights. On 3 February, Maurit ius and Pakistan reserved their third-party rights. 
On 6 February, Bolivia reserved its  third party rights. On 24 Febr uary 2003, India requested the 
Director-General to compose the Panel. On 6 March 2003, the Director-General composed the Panel.  
On 22 September 2003, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that it would not be possible to 
complete its work in six months due to the comp lexity of the matter involved and that the Panel 
expected to complete its work at the end of October 2003.  
On 1 December 2003, the Panel report was circulated  to the Members. The Panel found that: (i) India 
has demonstrated that the ta riff preferences under the Special  Arrangements to Combat Drug 
Production and Trafficking (the "Drug Arrangeme nts") provided in the EC's GSP scheme are 
inconsistent with Article I:1 of GATT 1994; (ii) the EC has failed to demonstrate that the Drug 
Arrangements are justified under paragraph 2(a) of the Enabling Clause, which requires that the GSP 
benefits be provided on a "non-discriminatory" basis;  and (iii) the EC has fa iled to demonstrate that 
the Drug Arrangements are justified under Article  XX(b) of GATT 1994 since the measure is not 
"necessary" for the protection of human life or health  in the EC, nor is it in conformity with the 
Chapeau of Article XX. (One panelist presented a dissenting opinion that the Enabling Clause is not 
an exception to Article I:1 and that India h as not made a claim under the Enabling Clause.)  
On 8 January 2004, the European Communities notified its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body 
certain issues of law covered in the Panel Report.  On 5 March 2004, the Chairman of the Appellate 
Body informed the DSB that it would not be possibl e for the Appellate Body to complete its work WT/DS/OV/25 
Page 90  
 
 within the 60-day period due to the time require d for completion and translation of its Report. The 
Appellate Body estimated that the Report would be ci rculated to Members no later than 7 April 2004.  
On 7 April 2004, the Appellate Body Report was circulated to Members. In the Report:  
• The Appellate Body upheld two of the Panel's findings ((i) the Enabling Clause operates as an 
exception to Article I:1 of the GATT 1994; and (ii) the Enabling Clause does not exclude the 
applicability of Article I:1 of the GATT 1994). The Appellate Body modified, however, one 
of the Panel's findings with respect to the re lationship between Article I:1 of the GATT 1994 
and the Enabling Clause. The Appellate Body foun d that the complaining party is obliged not 
only to claim inconsistency with Article I:1 of  the GATT 1994, but also to raise the relevant 
provisions of the Enabling Clause that the comp laining party argues are not satisfied by the 
challenged measure. Based on these findings, and because the EC did not appeal any other 
aspect of the Panel's reasoning with respect to Article I:1, the Appellate Body found that it 
need not rule on the Panel's conclusion as to th e consistency of the challenged measure with 
Article I:1 of the GATT 1994.  
• The Appellate Body reversed the Panel's legal in terpretation of paragraph 2(a) of the Enabling 
Clause and footnote 3 thereto, by concluding that, in granting differential tariff treatment, 
preference-granting countries are required, by virtue of the term "non-discriminatory", to ensure that identical treatment is available to a ll similarly-situated GSP beneficiaries, that is, 
to all GSP beneficiaries that have the same "d evelopment, financial and trade needs" to which 
the treatment in question is intended to res pond. With respect to the consistency of the 
challenged measure with the Enabling Clause, th e Appellate Body upheld, albeit for different 
reasons, the Panel's conclusion that the Europ ean Communities failed to demonstrate that the 
challenged measure was justified under para graph 2(a) of the Enabling Clause.  
At its meeting on 20 April 2004, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report a nd the Panel report, as 
modified by the Appellate Body report.  
19. WT/DS245 – Japan – Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples 
Complaint by the United States. On 1 March 2002, the United States requested consultations with 
Japan regarding restrictions allegedly imposed by Japan on imports of apples from the United States.  
The United States' complaint arose from the maintenan ce by Japan of quarantine restrictions on apples 
imported into Japan, which restrictions were said to be necessary to protect against introduction of fire 
blight. Among the measures the United States complain ed of were the prohibition of imported apples 
from orchards in which any fire blight was detected , the requirement that export orchards be inspected 
three times yearly for the presence of fire blight and the disqualification of any orchard from 
exporting to Japan should fire blight be detected  within a 500 meter buffer zone surrounding such 
orchard.  
The United States claimed that these measures might be  inconsistent with the obligations of Japan 
under:  
• Article XI of GATT 1994,  
• Articles 2.2, 2.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.6, 6.1, 6.2 and 7 and Annex B of the SPS Agreement, and  
• Article 14 of the Agreement on Agriculture.   WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page 91 
 
 
 On 7 May 2002, the United States requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 22 May 
2002, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to by the United 
States, at its meeting on 3 June 2002, the DSB est ablished a panel. Australia, Brazil and the EC 
reserved their third-party rights. On 10 June 2002, Ne w Zealand reserved its third party rights. On 12 
June 2002, Chinese Taipei reserved its third party rights.  
On 9 July 2002, the US requested  the Director-General to compo se the panel. On 17 July 2002, the 
panel was composed. On 16 January 2003, the Chai rman of the Panel informed the DSB that the 
Panel could not complete its work within 6 months  from its composition. The Panel expected to issue 
its final report to the parties by the end of May 2003.  
The Panel circulated its Report to Members on 15 July 2003. The Panel found that Japan's 
phytosanitary measure imposed on imports of appl es from the United States was contrary to Article 
2.2 of the SPS Agreement and was not justified u nder Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement and that 
Japan's 1999 Pest Risk Assessment did not meet  the requirements of Article 5.1 of the SPS 
Agreement.  
On 28 August 2003, Japan notified its decision to a ppeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law 
covered in the Panel Report a nd certain legal interpretations  developed by the Panel.  
On 23 October 2003, the Chairman of the Appellate Body informed the DSB that the Appellate Body 
would not be able to circulate its Report within 60 days due to the time required for completion and 
translation of the Report and that it estimated that the Appellate Body Report in this appeal would be 
circulated to WTO Members no later than 26 November 2003.  
On 26 November 2003, the report of the Appellate Bo dy was circulated. The Appellate Body rejected 
all four of Japan's claims on a ppeal. The Appellate Body upheld  the Panel's findings that Japan's 
phytosanitary measure at issue was inconsistent with  Japan's obligations under Articles 2.2, 5.7, and 
5.1 of the SPS Agreement. The Appellate Body al so found that the Panel properly discharged its 
duties under Article 11 of the DSU in the Panel's as sessment of the facts of the case. The US sole 
claim on appeal challenged the "authority" of the Pa nel to make findings and draw conclusions with 
respect to apples other than "mature, symptoml ess" apple fruit. The Appellate Body rejected this 
claim, finding that the Panel did have the "authorit y" to make rulings covering all apple fruit that 
could possibly be exported from the United States to Japan, including apples other than "mature, 
symptomless" apples.  
At its meeting on 10 December 2003, the DSB adopt ed the Appellate Body report and the Panel 
report, as modified by the Appellate Body report.  
20. WT/DS244 – United States – Sunset Review of Anti-Dumping Duties on Corrosion-
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan 
Complaint by Japan. On 30 January 2002, Japan re quested consultations with the United States in 
respect of the final determinations of both the Un ited States Department of Commerce (DOC) and the 
United States International Trade Commission in th e full sunset review of the anti-dumping duties 
imposed on imports of corrosion-resistant carbon steel  flat products from Japan. These determinations 
were issued on 2 August 2000 and 21 November 2000, respectively.  
• Japan claimed that these determinations were  erroneous and based on deficient rulings, 
procedures and provisions pertaining to the Un ited States Tariff Act of 1930, as amended 
("the Act") and related regulations.  WT/DS/OV/25 
Page 92  
 
 • Japan further claimed that the procedures and pr ovisions of the Act and related regulations as 
well as the above determinations were inconsis tent with, inter alia, Articles VI and X of 
GATT 1994; Articles 2, 3, 5, 6 (including Annex II), 11, 12, and 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.  
On 13 February 2002, the EC requested to join  the consultations. On 14 February 2002, India 
requested to join the consultations.  
On 4 April 2002, Japan requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 17 April 2002, the 
DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Further to a second request from Japan, the DSB 
established a panel at its meeting on 22 May 2002. Br azil, Canada, Chile, EC, India. Korea, Norway 
and Venezuela reserved third-party rights to  participate in the Panel proceedings.  
On 9 July 2002, Japan requested th e Director-General to compose th e panel. On 17 July 2002, the 
panel was composed.  
On 5 August 2002 Venezuela decided to withdraw as a third party from the panel proceedings.  
On 9 January 2003, the Chair of the Panel informed th e DSB that it would not be possible to complete 
its work within six months due to the timetable adopted after having heard the parties' views and 
based on the time periods prescribed in Appendix 3 of  the DSU. The Panel expected to complete its 
work by April 2003. On 22 May 2003, the Panel issued  its report to the parties to the dispute. On 14 
August 2003, the Panel circulated its Report to the Me mbers. The Panel rejected all of Japan's claims 
challenging various aspects of the US laws and regulations regardi ng the conduct of "sunset" reviews 
of anti-dumping duties under US law. The Panel found, inter alia, that the obligations pertaining to evidentiary standards for self-initiation and de mini mis standards in investigations do not apply to 
sunset reviews. The Panel also rejected Japan's ar gument that the US Sunset Policy Bulletin – which, 
by its own terms, provides guidance on methodological or analytical issues not explicitly addressed by the US statute and regulations – was a mandatory in strument that could be challenged as such in WTO 
dispute settlement. Rather, the Panel found that the Bulletin may be challenged only in respect of its 
application by the US Department of Commerce ("USDOC") in a particular case. The Panel further 
found that the USDOC's determination of likelihood of  continuation or recurrence of dumping in this 
particular case was not WTO-inconsistent. Acco rdingly, the Panel made no recommendation.  
On 15 September 2003, Japan sent its notification of an appeal to the DSB and filed the Notice of 
Appeal with the Appellate Body.  
On 12 November 2003, the Chairman of the Appella te Body informed the DSB that the Appellate 
Body would not be able to circulate its Report w ithin 60 days due to the time required for completion 
and translation of the Report and that it estimated that the Appellate Body Report in this appeal would 
be circulated to WTO Members no later than 15 December 2003.  
On 15 December 2003, the report of the Appellate Bo dy was circulated to Members. The Appellate 
Body upheld
 three findings but reversed  four of the Panel's legal fi ndings. The Appellate Body found , 
contrary to the Panel, that the Bulletin can be challenged in WTO dispute settlement. However, the 
Appellate Body did not find any of the provisions of the Bulletin inconsistent with the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement or the WTO Agreement. Although its analys is of Japan's claims differed from that of the 
Panel in important respects, the Appellate Body did not make any finding that the US had acted 
inconsistently with its obligations under the An ti-Dumping Agreement or the WTO Agreement.  
At its meeting on 9 January 2004, the DSB adopted th e Appellate Body report a nd the Panel report, as 
modified by the Appellate Body report.   WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page 93 
 
 
 21. WT/DS243 – United States – Rules of Origin for Textiles and Apparel Products 
Complaint by India. On 11 January 2002, India re quested consultations with the United States in 
respect of its rules of origin applicable to imports of textiles and apparel produc ts as set out in Section 
334 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, Secti on 405 of the Trade and Development Act of 2000 
and the customs regulations implementing these provisions.  
India argued that, prior to the above mentioned Secti on 334, the rule of origin applicable to textiles 
and apparel products was th e "substantial transformation" rule. India considered that Section 334 
changed the system by identifying specific processi ng operations which would confer origin to the 
various types of textiles and appa rel products. In India's view, these changes appear to have been 
made to protect the United States textiles and clothing industry from import competition. India 
indicated that the changes introduced by Section 334 had already been challenged by the European 
Communities on the grounds that they were incompa tible with the United States' obligations under the 
Agreement on Rules of Origin and other WTO Agreements (WT/DS151). India explained that that dispute was settled through a procès-verbal whereby the United States agreed to introduce legislation 
amending Section 334. According to India, the changes introduced by the amending legislation, i.e. 
Section 405, were aimed at taking account of the particular export interests of the European 
Communities.  
India is of the view that the changes introdu ced by Sections 334 and 405 have resulted in 
extraordinary complex rules under which the criteria th at confer origin vary between similar products 
and processing operations. India argued that the stru cture of the changes, the circumstances under 
which they were adopted and their effect on the conditions of competition for textiles and apparel 
products suggest that they serve trade policy purposes. On those grounds, India questioned the 
compatibility of those changes with paragraphs (b), (c), (d) and (e) of Article 2 of the Agreement on 
Rules of Origin.  
On 7 May 2002, India requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 22 May 2002, the 
DSB deferred the establishment of a panel . Further to a second request by India, the DSB established 
a panel at its meeting on 24 June 2002. EC, Pakistan and the Phili ppines reserved their third party 
rights. On 3 July 2002, Bangladesh reserved its thir d party rights. On 4 July 2002, China reserved its 
third party rights. On 10 October 2002, the Panel was composed. On 9 April 2003, the Chairman of 
the Panel informed the DSB that due to the complexi ty of the matter, the Panel would not be able to 
complete its work in six months. The Panel expects to  issue its final report to the parties in early May 
2003.  
On 20 June 2003, the Panel Report was circul ated to Members. The Panel found that:  
• India failed to establish that section 334 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act is 
inconsistent with Articles 2(b) or  2(c) of the RO Agreement; and  
• India failed to establish that section 405 of th e Trade and Development Act is inconsistent 
with Articles 2(b), 2(c) or 2(d) of the RO Agreement;  
• India failed to establish that the customs regulations contained in 19 C.F.R. § 102.21 are 
inconsistent with Articles 2(b), 2(c)  or 2(d) of the RO Agreement;  
At its meeting on 21 July 2003, the DSB adopted the Panel Report.  WT/DS/OV/25 
Page 94  
 
 22. WT/DS241 – Argentina – Definitive Anti-D umping Duties on Poultry from Brazil 
Complaint by Brazil. On 7 November 2001, Brazil re quested consultations with Argentina in respect 
of the definitive anti-dumping duties imposed by Argentina on imports of poultry from Brazil, 
classified under Mercosur tariff line 0207.11.00 an d 0207.12.00. These measures were adopted by the 
Ministry of Economy of Argentina in Resolution 574 from 21 July 2000, published in the Argentinean 
Official Gazette on 24 July 2000. Brazil consider ed that the definitive anti-dumping duties imposed, 
as well as the investigation conducted by the Arge ntinean Authorities might have been flawed and 
based on erroneous or deficient procedures, inconsis tent with Argentina's obligations under Articles 1, 
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 12 and Annex II of the Anti- Dumping Agreement, Article VI of the GATT 1994, and 
Articles 1 and 7 of the Customs Valuation Agreement.  
On 19 November 2001, the EC requested to join the consultations. On 25 February 2002, Brazil 
requested the establishment of a panel. At its  meeting on 8 March 2002, the DSB deferred the 
establishment of a panel. At the DSB meeting on 17 April 2002, the panel was established. Argentina 
noted that notwithstanding the establishment of th e panel at the present meeting, it was still hopeful 
that a mutually satisfactory solution to the dispute could be found. Canada, Chile, the EC, Guatemala, 
Paraguay and the US reserved their third-party rights.  
On 17 June 2002, Brazil requested the Director-Gener al to compose the panel. On 27 June 2002, the 
panel was composed.  
On 18 December 2002, the Chair of the Panel info rmed the DSB that it would not be possible to 
complete its work in six months due to the sched ule agreed with the parties and that the Panel 
expected to complete its work by the beginning of April 2003.  
On 22 April 2003, the Panel circulated its Report to  the Members. The Panel found that Argentina had 
acted inconsistently with its obligations under Articles 2.4,  2.4.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 5.1, 5.8, 6.1.1, 
6.1.3, 6.8 and Annex II, 6.10 and 12.1 of the An ti-Dumping Agreement. The Panel also concluded 
that Argentina had not acted inconsistently with  a number of Articles from the same Agreement and 
declined to rule on a number of claims for judicial economy reasons.  
At its meeting on 19 May 2003, the DSB adopted the Panel Report.  
23. WT/DS238 – Argentina – Definitive Safe guard Measure on Imports of Preserved 
Peaches 
Complaint by Chile. On 14 September 2001, Chile re quested consultations with Argentina in respect 
of a definitive safeguard measure which Argentina applies on imports of peaches preserved in water 
containing added sweetening matter, including syrup,  preserved in any other form or in water. 
According to Chile Argentina's definitive safeguard me asure is inconsistent with Articles 2, 4, 5 and 
12 of the Agreement on Safeguards, and Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994.  
On 6 December 2001, Chile requested the establishmen t of a panel. At its meeting on 18 December 
2001, the DSB deferred the establishment of the panel. At the DSB meeting on 18 January 2002, a panel was established. Immediately after the estab lishment, Chile stated that it would not, for the 
moment, proceed with the appointment of pane lists, as it was still hoping to reach a mutually 
satisfactory solution with Argentina. The Europ ean Communities, Paraguay and the United States 
reserved their third-party rights to participate in  the Panel's proceedings. On 13 March 2002, Chile 
informed the Chairman of the DSB that it would like the composition of the panel to go ahead. The panel was composed on 16 April 2002.   WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page 95 
 
 
 On 15 October 2002, the Chair of the Panel inform ed the DSB that it would not be possible to 
complete its work in six months due to the sched ule agreed with the parties and that the Panel 
expected to circulate its report at the end of Janua ry 2003. On 14 February 2003, the Panel circulated 
its Report to the Members. The Panel concluded that the Argentine preserved peaches measure was 
imposed inconsistently with certain provisions  of the Agreement on Safeguards and GATT 1994. In 
particular:  
• Argentina acted inconsistently with its oblig ations under Article XIX:1(a) of GATT 1994 by 
failing to demonstrate the existence of unforeseen developments as required;  
• Argentina acted inconsistently with its oblig ations under Article XIX:1(a) of GATT 1994 and 
Articles 2.1 and 4.2(a) of the Agreement on Safe guards by failing to make a determination of 
an increase in imports, in absolute or relative terms, as required;  
• Argentina acted inconsistently with its oblig ations under Article XIX:1(a) of GATT 1994 and 
Articles 2.1, 4.1(b) and 4.2(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards because the competent authorities, in their determination of the existence of a threat of serious injury:  
1. did not evaluate all of the relevant factors having a bearing on the situation of the domestic 
industry;  
2. did not provide a reasoned and ad equate explanation of how the 
facts supported their determination; and  
3. did not find that serious injury was clearly imminent.  
The Panel did not find that Argentina acted inconsis tently with its obligations under Articles 2.1 and 
4.1(b) of the Agreement on Safeguards by basing a finding of the existence of a threat of serious 
injury on an allegation, conjecture or remote po ssibility. The Panel exercised judicial economy with 
respect to all other claims.  
At its meeting on 15 April 2003, the DSB adopted the Panel Report.  
24. WT/DS236 – United States – Preliminary De terminations with Respect to Certain 
Softwood Lumber from Canada 
Complaint by Canada. On 21 August 2001, Canada requested consultations with the US concerning 
the preliminary countervailing duty determination and the preliminary critical circumstances determination made by the US Department of Co mmerce on 9 August 2001, with respect to certain 
softwood lumber from Canada. This request also concerned US measures on company-specific expedited reviews and administrative reviews. In particular:  
• As far as the preliminary countervailing duty dete rmination is concerned,  Canada considered 
this determination to be incons istent with US obligations under Articles 1, 2, 10, 14, 17.1, 
17.5, 19.4 and 32.1 of the SCM Agreem ent and Article VI(3) of GATT 1994.  
• With respect to the preliminary critical circumst ances determination, Ca nada considered this 
determination to be inconsiste nt with Articles 17.1, 17.3, 17.4, 19.4 and 20.6 of the SCM 
Agreement.  WT/DS/OV/25 
Page 96  
 
 • As regards US measures on company-specific expedited reviews and administrative reviews, 
Canada considered these measures  are inconsistent with US ob ligations under Article VI:3 of 
the GATT 1994 and Articles 10, 19.3, 19.4, 21.1, 21.2 and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement.  
• Canada also considered that the US had failed to  ensure that its laws and regulations are in 
conformity with its WTO obligations as require d by Article 32.5 of the SCM Agreement and 
Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.  
On the grounds that the affirmative prelimin ary countervailing duty and critical circumstances 
determinations had an immediate and significant trad e impact, Canada requested urgent consultations 
pursuant to Article 4.8 of the DSU. Although accepti ng Canada's request to enter into consultations, 
the US did not accept this to be a case of urgency for the purposes of Article 4.8 of the DSU since the 
measures in question involve the posting of bond fo r or deposit of preliminary duties which could be 
refunded in whole or in part. 
On 25 October 2001, Canada requested the establishm ent of a panel. At its meeting on 5 November 
2001, the DSB deferred the establishment of a pane l. At its meeting on 5 December 2001, the DSB 
established a panel. The EC and India reserved thei r third-party rights to participate in the panel 
proceedings. On 17 December 2001, Japan requested to participate in the proceedings as a third party.  
On 22 January 2002, Canada requested the Direct or-General to determine the composition of the 
panel. On 1 February 2002, the Director-General composed the panel.  
On 27 September 2002, the Panel Report was ci rculated. The Panel found that the USDOC 
Preliminary Countervailing Duty Determination:  
• was not inconsistent with Article 1.1 (a) SCM Agreement when the USDOC found that the 
provision of stumpage constituted a financial contribution, in the form of the provision of a 
good or service;  
• failed to determine the existence and amount of benefit to the producers of the subject 
merchandise on the basis of the prevailing market  conditions in Canada as required by Article 
1.1 (b) and Article 14 and 14 (d) SCM Agreement; and  
• failed to establish that a benefit was conferred to  certain producers of the subject merchandise 
as the USDOC did not examine whether a benefit was passed through by the unrelated upstream producers of log inputs to the downstream producers of the subject merchandise;  
Therefore, the Panel concluded that the USDO C's imposition of provisiona l measures based on the 
preliminary countervailing duty determination was inc onsistent with the US obligations under Articles 
1.1 (b), 10, 14, 14 (d), and 17.1(b) SCM Agreement.  
The Panel exercised judicial economy in respect of Canada's claim that the USDOC instructions 
transmitted to the United States Customs Service on 4 September 2001, imposed provisional measures in excess of the subsidy preliminarily found to exist in a manner inconsistent with Articles 10, 17.2, 
17.5, 19.4 and 32.1 of the SCM Agreem ent and Article VI:3 of GATT 1994.  
The Panel further concluded that the retroactive imposition of a provisional measure on the basis of 
the USDOC Preliminary Critical Circumstances Dete rmination is inconsiste nt with Articles 20.6, 
17.3, and 17.4 SCM Agreement and exercised judicial  economy in respect of Canada's claim that the 
USDOC failed to establish the existence of criti cal circumstances under Article 20.6 SCM Agreement 
in its Preliminary Critical Circumstances Determination.   WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page 97 
 
 
 Finally, the Panel concluded that the US laws a nd regulations challenged by  Canada on expedited and 
administrative reviews are not inconsistent with  the SCM Agreement as they do not require the 
executive authority to act in a manner inconsistent with the US obligations under Articles 19 and 21 
of the SCM Agreement concerning expedited and administrative reviews. As a result the Panel rejected Canada's claims that the United States has fail ed to ensure that its laws and regulations are in 
conformity with its WTO obligatio ns as required by Article 32.5 of  the SCM Agreement and Article 
XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.  
The Panel recommended that the DSB request the Unite d States to bring its measure into conformity 
with its obligations under the SCM Agreement.  
At its meeting on 1 November 2002, the DSB adopted the Panel Report.  25. WT/DS231 – European Communities – Trade Description of Sardines 
Complaint by Peru. On 20 March 2001, Peru requ ested consultations with the EC concerning 
Regulation (EEC) 2136/89 which, according to Peru, pr events Peruvian exporters to continue to use 
the trade description "sardines" for their products.  
Peru submitted that, according to the relevant Codex Alimentarius standards (STAN 94-181 rev. 
1995), the species "sardinops sagax sagax" are lis ted among those species which can be traded as 
"sardines". Peru, therefore, considered that the a bove Regulation constitutes an unjustifiable barrier to 
trade, and, hence, in breach of Articles 2 and 12 of the TBT Agreement and Article XI:1 of GATT 
1994. In addition, Peru argues that the Regulati on is inconsistent with the principle of non-
discrimination, and, hence, in breach of Articles I and III of GATT 1994.  
Further to Peru's request, the DSB established a Panel at its meeting on 24 July 2001. Canada, Chile, 
Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela and the US reserved th eir third-party rights. On 31 August 2001, Peru 
requested the Director-General to  determine the composition of the Panel. On 11 September 2001, the 
Panel was composed. On 11 March 2002, the Panel in formed the DSB that it would not be able to 
issue its report within 6 months, due to the comple xity of the matter and scheduling constraints. The 
Panel expects to complete its work by end of Ap ril 2002. On 3 May 2002, the parties to the dispute 
requested the Panel to suspend its proceedings, pursuant to Article 12.12 of the DSU, until 21 May 
2002. On 6 May 2002, the Panel agreed to this request.  
The Panel Report was circulated to Members on 29 May 2002. The Panel concluded that the EC 
Regulation was inconsistent with Ar ticle 2.4 of the TBT Agreement.  
On 28 June 2002, the EC notified its decision to app eal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law 
covered in the in the Panel report and certain le gal interpretations developed by the Panel.  
On 26 September 2002 the report of the Appellate Body was circulated. The Appellate Body:  
• found that the condition attached to the withdrawal of the Notice of Appeal of 25 June 2002 
was permissible, and that the appeal of the EC, commenced by the Notice of Appeal of 28 June 2002, was admissible;  
• found that the amicus curiae briefs submitted were admissible but their contents did not assist 
in deciding the appeal;  
• upheld the Panel's finding, in paragraph 7.35 of the Panel Report, that the EC Regulation is a 
"technical regulation" under the TBT Agreement;  WT/DS/OV/25 
Page 98  
 
 • upheld the Panel's findings, in paragraph 7.60 of the Panel Report, that Article 2.4 of the TBT 
Agreement applies to measures that were adopt ed before 1 January 1995 but which have not 
"ceased to exist", and, in pa ragraph 7.83 of the Panel Report,  that Article 2.4 of the TBT 
Agreement applies to existing technical re gulations, including the EC Regulation;  
• upheld the Panel's finding, in paragraph 7.70 of  the Panel Report, that Codex Stan 94 is a 
"relevant international standard" unde r Article 2.4 of the TBT Agreement;  
• upheld the Panel's finding, in paragraph 7.112 of the Panel Report, that Codex Stan 94 was 
not used "as a basis for" the EC Regulation w ithin the meaning of Article 2.4 of the TBT 
Agreement; 
• reversed the Panel's finding, in  paragraph 7.52 of the Panel Re port, that, under the second part 
of Article 2.4 of the TBT Agreement, the burden of proof rested with the EC to demonstrate 
that Codex Stan 94 is an "ineffective or in appropriate means for the fulfilment of the 
legitimate objectives pursued" by the EC through the EC Regulation, and found, instead, that 
the burden of proof rested with Peru to demons trate that Codex Stan 94 is an effective and 
appropriate means to fulfil those "legitimate obj ectives", and, upheld the Panel's finding, in 
paragraph 7.138 of the Panel Report, that Pe ru has adduced sufficient evidence and legal 
arguments to demonstrate that Codex Stan 94 is not "ineffective or inappropriate" to fulfil the 
"legitimate objectives" of the EC Regulation;  
• rejected the claim of the EC that the Pane l did not conduct "an objective assessment of the 
facts of the case", as required by Article 11 of the DSU;  
• rejected the claim of the EC that the Panel ma de a determination, in paragraph 7.127 of the 
Panel Report, that the EC Regulation is trade-rest rictive, and, declared moot and without legal 
effect the two statements, in paragraph 6.11 and in footnote 35 of the Panel Report, on the 
trade-restrictive character of the EC Regulation; and  
• found it unnecessary to complete the analysis  under Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement, 
Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement, or Article III:4 of the GATT 1994.  
Therefore, the Appellate Body upheld the Panel's fi nding, in paragraph 8.1 of the Panel Report, that 
the EC Regulation is inconsistent with  Article 2.4 of the TBT Agreement.  
The Appellate Body recommended that the DSB request the EC to bring the EC Regulation, as found 
in its and in the Panel Report, as modified by its Repor t, to be inconsistent with Article 2.4 of the TBT 
Agreement, into conformity with EC's obligations under that Agreement.  
On 23 October 2002, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report, as modified 
by the Appellate Body Report.  
26. WT/DS222 – Canada – Export Credits a nd Loan Guarantees for Regional Aircraft 
Complaint by Brazil. On 22 January 2001, Brazil re quested consultations with Canada concerning 
subsidies which are allegedly being granted to Canada's regional aircra ft industry. Brazil's claims are 
as follows:  
• Export credits, within the meaning of Item (k) of Annex I to the SCM Agreement, are being 
provided to Canada's regional aircraft industry by the Export Development Corporation 
(EDC) and the Canada Account.   WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page 99 
 
 
 • Loan guarantees, within the meaning of Item (j ) of Annex I to the SCM Agreement, are being 
provided by EDC, Industry Canada, and the Pr ovince of Quebec, to support exports of 
Canada's regional aircraft industry.  
• Brazil takes the view that all of the above-m entioned measures are subsidies, within the 
meaning of Article 1 of the SCM Agreement, sin ce they are financial contributions that confer 
a benefit.  
• According to Brazil, they are also contingent, in law or in fact, upon export, and constitute, 
therefore, a violation of Article 3 of the SCM Agreement.  
Further to Brazil's request, the DSB established a panel at its meeting of  12 March 2001. Australia, 
the EC, India and the US reserved their third pa rty rights. On 7 May 2001, Brazil requested the 
Director-General to determine the composition of the Panel. On 11 May 2001, the Panel was 
composed.  
On 9 August 2001, the Panel informed the DSB that it would not be possible to complete its work 
within the 3 months deadline from its composition. The panel informed that it expected to complete 
its work by October 2001. On 28 January 2002, the Panel circulated its repor t to the Members. The 
Panel:  
• rejected Brazil's claims th at the EDC Corporate Account, Canada Account, the IQ 
programmes "as such" constitute prohibited export s ubsidies contrary to Article 3.1(a) of the 
SCM Agreement;  
• rejected Brazil's claim that  the EDC Corporate Account, Canada Account and the IQ 
programmes "as applied" constitute  prohibited export subsidies contrary to Article 3.1(a) of 
the SCM Agreement;  
• upheld Brazil's claim th at the EDC Canada Account financing to Air Wisconsin, to Air 
Nostrum and to Comair constitutes a prohibited e xport subsidy contrary to Article 3.1(a) of 
the SCM Agreement;  
• rejected Brazil's claim that the EDC Corporat e Account financing to ASA, ACA, Kendell Air 
Nostrum and Comair in December 1996 , March 1997 and Marc h 1998 constitutes a 
prohibited export subsidy contrary to Ar ticle 3.1(a) of the SCM Agreement;  
• rejected Brazil's claim that IQ equity guar antees to ACA, Air Littoral, Midway, Mesa Air 
group, Air Nostrum and Air Wisconsin constitute  prohibited export subsidies contrary to 
Article 3.1(a) of the SCM Agreement; and  
• rejected Brazil's claim that IQ loan guarantees to Mesa Air Group and Air Wisconsin 
constitute prohibited export subsidies contrary to Article 3.1(a) of the SCM Agreement.  
The Panel also recommended that Canada withdr aw the subsidies identified within 90 days.  
At its meeting on 19 February 2002, the DSB adopted the panel report.  
27. WT/DS221 – United States – Section 129(c)(1) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act 
Complaint by Canada. On 17 January 2001, Canada requested consultations with the US concerning 
Section 129(c)(1) of the Uruguay Round Agreements  Act (the "URAA") and the Statement of WT/DS/OV/25 
Page 100  
 
 Administrative Action accompanying the URAA. In Ca nada's view, in a situation in which the DSB 
has ruled that the US has, in an anti-dumping or countervailing duty proceeding, acted inconsistently 
with US obligations under the AD or SCM Agreemen ts, the US law prohibits the US from complying 
fully with the DSB ruling. Under US law, de terminations whether to levy anti-dumping or 
countervailing duties are made after th e imports occur. With regard to imports that occurred prior to a 
date on which the US directs compliance with the DSB ruling, the measures require US authorities to 
disregard the DSB ruling in making such determina tions, even where the determination whether to 
levy anti-dumping or countervailing duties is made af ter the date fixed by the DSB for compliance. In 
such circumstances, determinations by the US to  levy anti-dumping or countervailing duties would be 
inconsistent with its obligations  under the AD or SCM Agreements.  
Canada considered that these measures are inconsiste nt with US obligations under Article21.3 of the 
DSU, in the context of Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.7 and 21.1 of the DSU; Article VI of the GATT 1994; Articles 10 and note 36, 19.2, 19.4 and note 51, 21.1, 32.1, 32.2, 32.3, and 32.5 of the SCM Agreement; Articles 1, 9.3, 11.1, 18.1-4 and note 12 of the AD Agreement; and Article XVI:4 of the 
WTO Agreement.  
Further to Canada's request, the DSB established a panel at its meeting of 23 August 2001. Chile, EC, 
India and Japan reserved their third-party rights. On  30 October 2001, the Panel was composed. On 30 
April 2002, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DS B that the Panel would not be able to complete 
its work in six months due to the complexity of the matter and that the Panel expected to issue its final 
report to the parties by the end of June 2002. On 15 July 2002, the Panel circulated its report to Members. The Panel concluded that that Canada ha d failed to establish that section 129(c)(1) of the 
Uruguay Round Agreements Act was inconsistent wi th Articles VI:2, VI:3 and VI:6(a) of the GATT 
1994; Articles 1, 9.3, 11.1 and 18.1 and 18.4 of the AD Agreement; Articles 10, 19.4, 21.1, 32.1 and 32.5 of the SCM Agreement; and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement. In the light of its conclusion, 
the Panel made no recommendations to the DSB. 
On 30 August 2002, the DSB adopted the Panel report.  28. WT/DS219 – European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Malleable Cast Iron 
Tube or Pipe Fittings from Brazil 
Complaint by Brazil. On 21 December 2000, Brazil requested consultations with the EC as regards 
definitive anti-dumping duties imposed by Council  Regulation (EC) No. 1784/2000 concerning 
imports of malleable cast iron tube or pipe fittings originating, inter alia, in Brazil.  
• Brazil considered that the EC's establishment of the facts was not proper and that its 
evaluation of these facts was not unbiased and obj ective, both at the pr ovisional and definitive 
stage, particularly in relation to the initiati on and conduct of the investigation (including the 
evaluation, findings and determination of dumpi ng, injury and causal link between them).  
• Brazil also challenged the evaluation and findi ngs made in relation to the "community 
interest".  
• In sum, Brazil considered that the EC had infringed Article VI of GATT 1994 and Articles 1, 
2, 3, 4 ,5 , 6, 7, 9, 11, 12 and 15 of the Anti-dumping Agreement.  
Further to Brazil's request, the DSB established a pane l at its meeting of 24 July 2001. Chile, Japan, 
Mexico and the US reserved their third-party rights. The Panel was composed on 5 September 2001.   WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page 101 
 
 
 On 15 January 2002, both parties requested the Panel to suspend its work until  1 March 2002 with a 
view to reaching a mutually agreed solution. The Panel agreed to the request. On 28 February 2002, 
both parties requested the Panel to further suspend its work until 5 April 2002 with a view to reaching 
a mutually agreed solution. The Panel agreed to this request. On 22 April 2002, the Panel resumed its 
work, in accordance with Brazil's request. On 3 Ma y 2002, the Chairman of the Panel notified the 
DSB that it would not be possible to complete its work  in six months in light of, inter alia, scheduling 
conflicts. The Panel expects to complete its wo rk in December 2002. On 7 March 2003, the Panel 
circulated its Report to the Members. The Panel conc luded that the EC had ac ted inconsistently with 
its obligations under:  
• Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement in “zeroing” negative dumping margins in its 
dumping determination; and  
• Article 12.2 and 12.2.2 in that it is not dir ectly discernible from the published Provisional or 
Definitive Determination that the European Co mmunities addressed or explained the lack of 
significance of certain injury factors listed in Article 3.4.  
The Panel ruled against Brazil on all other claims. On 23 April 2003, Brazil notified its decision to 
appeal certain issues of law as well as certain le gal interpretations developed by the Panel.  
On 22 July 2003, the Appellate Body Report was circ ulated to Members. Of the seven issues appealed 
by Brazil, the Appellate Body rejected Brazil's clai ms with respect to six issues. The Appellate Body 
upheld  the Panel's findings that the European Commun ities did not act inconsistently with Article 
VI:2 of the GATT 1994 or with Articles 1, 2.2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, or 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. In the course of upholding these findings, the Appellate Body also rejected Brazil's claim 
that the Panel, contrary to its obligation under Ar ticle 17.6(i) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, failed 
to assess properly the facts of the matter before it when admitting into evid ence the document referred 
to as Exhibit EC-12. The Appellate Body reversed
 the Panel's finding with respect to one issue. The 
Appellate Body found, in contrast to the Panel, that the European  Communities acted inconsistently 
with Articles 6.2 and 6.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreem ent by failing to disclose to interested parties 
during the anti-dumping investigation certain informati on related to the evaluation of the state of the 
domestic industry, which was containe d in document Exhibit EC-12.  
On 18 August 2003, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as modified by 
the Appellate Body Report.  
29. WT/DS217, WT/DS234 – United States – Cont inued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 
2000 
Joint complaint by Australia, Brazil, Chile, Europ ean Communities, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea 
and Thailand (WT/DS217), and Canada and Mexico (WT/DS234) . On 21 December 2000 and 21 
May 2001 respectively, the complainants request ed consultations with the US concerning the 
amendment to the Tariff Act of 1930 signed on 28 October 2000 with the title of "Continued 
Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000" (the "Act ") usually referred to as "the Byrd Amendment". 
According to the complainants the Act is inconsis tent with the obligations of the United States under 
several provisions of the GATT, the AD Agreemen t, the SCM Agreement, and the WTO Agreement. 
In particular, the Act is alleged to  be inconsistent with the obligations of the United States under: (i) 
Article 18.1 of the ADA in conjuncti on with Article VI:2 of the GATT and Article 1 of the ADA; (ii) 
Article 32.1 of the SCM Agreement, in conjunction with Article VI:3 of the GATT and Articles 4.10, 
7.9 and 10 of the SCM Agreement; (iii) Article X(3) (a) of the GATT; (iv) Article 5.4 of the ADA and 
Article 11.4 of the SCM Agreement; (v) Article 8 of the ADA and Article 18 of the SCM Agreement; WT/DS/OV/25 
Page 102  
 
 (vi) Article 5 of the SCM Agreement; and (vii)  Article XVI:4 of the Marrakesh Agreement 
establishing the WTO, Article 18.4 of the ADA and Article 32.5 of the SCM Agreement. 
On 12 July 2001, the complainants in dispute WT /DS217 requested the establishment of a panel. At 
its meeting on 24 July 2001, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Further to a second 
request to establish a panel by the complainants, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 23 
August 2001. Argentina; Canada; Costa Rica; Ho ng Kong, China; Israel; Norway and Mexico 
reserved their third-party rights.  
On 10 August 2001, Canada and Mexico  requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 23 
August 2001, the DSB deferred the est ablishment of a panel. Further to a second request to establish a 
panel by Canada and Mexico, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 10 September 2001. The 
DSB also agreed, in accordance with Article 9 of th e DSU, that the panel established to examine the 
complaint by Australia, Brazil, Chile, EC, India,  Indonesia, Japan, Korea and Thailand (WT/DS217) 
on 23 August 2001 would also examine the comp laint by Canada and Mexico (WT/DS234).  
On 15 October 2001, all 11 complainants request ed the Director-General to determine the 
composition of the Panel. On 25 October 2001, the Panel was composed. On 17 April 2002, the 
Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that the Panel would not be able to complete its work in six 
months since the parties were given the maximum amount of time for preparing submissions and oral 
statements. The Panel expected to complete its work by July 2002.  
On 16 September 2002, the Panel Report was circulat ed to Members. The Panel concluded that the 
CDSOA was inconsistent with Articles 5.4, 18.1 and 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, Articles 
11.4, 32.1 and 32.5 of the Subsidies Agreement, Articles VI:2 and VI:3 of the GATT 1994, and 
Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement. The Panel rej ected the complaining parties' claims that the 
CDSOA was inconsistent with Artic les 8.3 and 15 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, Articles 4.10, 7.9 
and 18.3 of the Subsidies Agreement, and Article  X:3(a) of the GATT 1994. They also rejected 
Mexico's claim that the CDSOA violated SCM Article 5(b). The CDSOA is a new and complex measure, applied in a complex legal environment. In  concluding that the CDSOA was in violation of 
the abovementioned provisions, the Panel had been c onfronted by sensitive issues regarding the use of 
subsidies as trade remedies. If Members were of the vi ew that subsidisation is a permitted response to 
unfair trade practices, the Panel suggested that they  clarify this matter through negotiation. Pursuant 
to Article 3.8 of the DSU, the Panel concluded that  to the extent that the CDSOA was inconsistent 
with the provisions of the Anti Dumping Agreem ent, the SCM Agreement, and the GATT 1994, the 
CDSOA nullified or impaired benefits accruing to the complaining parties under those agreements. 
The Panel recommended that the DSB request the Unit ed States to bring the CDSOA into conformity 
with its obligations under the Anti Dumping Agreem ent, the SCM Agreement, and the GATT of 1994 
by repealing the CDSOA.  
On 18 October 2002, the United States notified its d ecision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain 
issues of law covered in the Panel Report and certain legal interpretations developed by the Panel. On 
13 December 2002, the Appellate Body informed the DSB that it was not able to circulate the Report 
within 60 days from the appeal and that the Report w as to be circulated no later than 16 January 2003. 
On 16 January 2003, the Appellate Body circ ulated its Report. The Appellate Body:  
• upheld the finding of the Panel, in paragraphs 7.51 and 8.1 of the Panel Report, that the 
CDSOA is a non-permissible specific action agains t dumping or a subsidy, contrary to Article 
18.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 32.1 of the SCM Agreement;  
• consequently upheld the Panel's finding, in paragr aphs 7.93 and 8.1 of the Panel Report, that 
the CDSOA is inconsistent with certain provi sions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the  WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page 103 
 
 
 SCM Agreement and that, therefore, the United States has failed to comply with Article 18.4 
of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, Article 32.5 of the SCM Agreement and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement;  
• upheld the Panel's finding, in paragraph 8.4 of the Panel Report, that, pursuant to Article 3.8 
of the DSU, to the extent that the CDSOA is inconsistent with provisions of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement and the SCM Agreement, the CDSOA nullifies or impairs benefits 
accruing to the Complaining Parties under those Agreements;  
• reversed the Panel's findings, in  paragraphs 7.66 and 8.1 of the Panel Report, that the CDSOA 
is inconsistent with Article 5.4 of the Anti- Dumping Agreement and Article 11.4 of the SCM 
Agreement;  
• rejected the Panel's conclusion, in paragraph 7. 63 of the Panel Report, that the United States 
may be regarded as not having acted in good faith with respect to its obligations under Article 
5.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 11.4 of the SCM Agreement; and  
• rejected the claim of the United States that the Panel acted inconsistently with Article 9.2 of 
the DSU by not issuing a separate panel report in the dispute brought by Mexico.  
The Appellate Body recommended that the DSB re quest the United States bring the CDSOA into 
conformity with its obligations under the Anti-Du mping Agreement, the SCM Agreement, and the 
GATT 1994. Further to Canada's request, the DSB ad opted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel 
Report, as modified by the Appellate Body, at its meeting on 27 January 2003.  
30. WT/DS213 – United States – Countervailing Duties on Certain Corrosion-Resistant 
Carbon Steel Flat Products from Germany 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 10 November 2000, the EC requested consultations 
with the US in respect of countervailing duties im posed by the US on imports of certain corrosion-
resistant carbon steel flat products ("corrosion resistant steel"), dealt with under US case number C-428-817. This dispute related, in particular, to the final results of a full sunset review of the above 
measure, carried out by the US Department of Commerce ("DOC") and published in the US Federal 
Register No. 65 FR 47407 of 2 August 2000. In this  decision, the DOC found that revocation of the 
countervailing duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or  recurrence of a countervailable 
subsidy. The EC considered that this finding is in consistent with the obligations of the US under the 
SCM Agreement and, in particular, in breach of Articles 10, 11.9 and 21 (notably 21.3) thereof.  
On 5 February 2001, the EC requested further cons ultations. As the consulta tions failed, a panel was 
established by the DSB on 10 September 2001 further to the request of the EC. Japan and Norway 
reserved their third-party rights. On 18 October 2001, the EC requested the Director-General to 
determine the composition of the Panel. On 26 October 2001, the Director-General composed the Panel. On 12 April 2002, the Chairman of the Pane l informed the DSB that the Panel would not be 
able to complete its work within six months due to  the parties' wish to use the maximum time periods 
prescribed in Appendix 3 of the DSU. The Panel e xpected to complete its work by July 2002.  
On 3 July 2002, the Panel circulated its re port to Members. The Panel concluded that:  
• US CVD law and the accompanying regulations ar e consistent with Artic le 21, paragraphs 1 
and 3, and Article 10 of the SCM Agreement in  respect of the application of evidentiary 
standards to the self-initiation of sunset reviews;  WT/DS/OV/25 
Page 104  
 
 • US CVD law and the accompanying regulations ar e inconsistent with Article 21.3 of the SCM 
Agreement in respect of the application of a 0.5 per cent de minimis standard to sunset 
reviews, and therefore violate Article 32.5 of the SCM Agreement and, consequently, also Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement;  
• the United States, in applying a 0.5 per cent de mi nimis standard to the instant sunset review, 
acted in violation of Article 21.3 of the SCM Agreement;  
• US CVD law and the accompanying regulations and statement of policy practices are 
consistent with Article 21.3 of the SCM Agreem ent in respect of the obligation to determine 
the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of  subsidisation in sunset reviews; and  
• the United States, in failing to determine properl y the likelihood of continuation or recurrence 
of subsidisation in the sunset review on carbon st eel, acted in violation of Article 21.3 of the 
SCM Agreement.  
The Panel recommended that the DSB request the Un ited States to bring its measures mentioned in 
paragraphs (b), (c) and (e) into conformity w ith its obligations under the WTO Agreement.  
One member of the Panel dissociated himself from the Panel assessment relating to the US CVD law 
as such and as applied in the sunset review on carbon steel in respect of application of a de minimis 
standard to sunset reviews. This member did not sh are the view of the majority of the Panel that the 
silence in Article 21.3 of the SCM Agreement as to  the applicability of a de minimis standard to 
sunset reviews means that this standard applies to sunset reviews. Accordingly, and contrary to the 
panel's above findings, this member concluded that:  
• US CVD law and the accompanying regulations are consistent with Article 21.3 of the SCM 
Agreement in respect of the application of a 0.5 per cent de minimis standard to sunset 
reviews; and  
• the United States, in applying a 0.5 per cent de mi nimis standard to the instant sunset review, 
did not act in violation of Article 21.3 of the SCM Agreement.  
On 30 August 2002, the US notified its decision to app eal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law 
covered in the Panel report. The Report was ci rculated to Members on 28 November 2002. The 
Appellate Body:  
• upheld Panel findings relating to the Panel's te rms of reference; the consistency of United 
States law with obligations relating to the self-initiation of sunset reviews by domestic 
authorities; and the consistency of United St ates law with obligations relating to the 
determination to be made in a sunset review;  
• reversed the Panel's interpretation of Artic le 21.3 of the Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures as regards de minimis subs idization in sunset reviews. Accordingly, 
the Appellate Body also reversed the related Panel findings that United States law, as such 
and as applied, were inconsis tent with that provision. 
On 19 December 2002, the DSB adopted the Appe llate Body Report and the Panel Report, as 
modified by the Appellate Body Report.   WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page 105 
 
 
 31. WT/DS212 – United States – Countervailing Measures Concerning Certain Products 
from the European Communities 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 10 November 2000, the EC requested consultations 
with the US concerning the continued applicati on by the United States of countervailing duties on a 
number of products. In particular, the EC claime d that the application of the "same person" 
methodology by the US, and the continued imposition of duties based on it, are in breach of Articles 
10, 19 and 21 of the SCM Agreement, because there is no proper determination of a benefit to the producer of the goods under investigation, as require d by Article 1.1(b) of the SCM Agreement. The 
EC included in this request for consultations 12 US countervailing duty orders2 where this "same 
person" methodology was applied. All these cases invol ve alleged non-recurring subsidies granted to 
firms prior to a change of ownership;  
On 1 February 2001, the EC requested further c onsultations with the US. Failing consultations and 
further to the request of the EC, the DSB establis hed a panel at its meeting of 10 September 2001. 
Brazil, India and Mexico reserved their third-part y rights. On 25 October 2001, the EC requested the 
Director-General to determine the composition of the Panel. On 5 November 2001, the Panel was 
composed. On 18 April 2002, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that it would not be able 
to complete its work in six months due to the complexity of the matter. The Panel expected to 
complete its work by mid July 2002.  
On 31 July 2002, the Panel Report was circulated to  the Members. The Panel concluded that where a 
privatization is at arm's length and for fair mark et value, the benefit from a prior non-recurring 
financial contribution bestowed upon the state-owne d producer no longer accrues to the privatized 
producer. Therefore, the Panel found that both the 12  countervailing duty determinations and Section 
1677(5)(F) were inconsistent with WTO Law.  
On 9 September 2002 the US notified its decision to appeal certain issues of law covered in the Panel 
Report and certain legal interpreta tions developed by the Panel. The United States sought review by 
the Appellate Body of the conclusions of the Panel se t forth in paragraphs 8.1(a) –(d) and 8.2 of the 
Panel Report.  
On 9 December 2002, the Appellate Body Report was circulated to Members. The Appellate Body:  
• upheld the Panel's findings, in paragraphs 8.1 (a ), (b) and (c) of the Panel Report, that the 
United States has acted inconsistently with Artic les 10, 14, 19.1, 19.4, 21.1, 21.2 and 21.3 of 
the SCM Agreement, by imposing and maintain ing countervailing duties without determining 
whether a "benefit" continues to exist in twelve countervailing duty determinations;  
                                                      
2 Original imposition of counte rvailing duties (post-WTO measures) :  Stainless Sheet and Strip in 
Coils from France (C-427-815); Certain Cut-to-Length Ca rbon Quality Steel from France (C-427-817); Certain 
Pasta from Italy (C-475-819); Stainle ss Steel Sheet and Strip in coils from  Italy (C-475-821); Certain Stainless 
Steel Wire Rod from Italy (C-475-823);  Stainless Steel Plate in coils from  Italy (C-475-825); Certain Cut-to-
length Carbon-quality steel plate from Italy (C-475-827). Administrative reviews: Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel 
Flat Products from Sweden (C-401-401); Cut-to Length  Carbon Steel Plate from Sweden (C-401-804); Grain-
oriented electrical steel from Italy * (C-475-812). Sunset reviews: Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from 
United Kingdom (C-412-815); Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from France (C-427-
810); Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Germany (C-428-817); Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from 
Spain (C-469-804). 
* Preliminary determination, plus final sunset results. WT/DS/OV/25 
Page 106  
 
 • reversed the Panel's finding, in paragraph 8.1( d), first sentence, of the Panel Report, that 
"[o]nce an importing Member has determined that a privatization has taken place at arm's-length and for fair market value, it must reach  the conclusion that no "benefit" resulting from 
the prior financial contribution (or subsidiza tion) continues to accrue to the privatized 
producer"; and  
• reversed the Panel's conclusion, in paragra ph 8.1(d), second sentence, of the Panel Report, 
that Section 771(5)(F) of the Tariff Act 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1677(5)(F), is inconsistent with the SCM Agreement.  
• upheld the Panel's conclusion, in  paragraph 8.2 of the Panel Report, that, insofar as the United 
States has infringed its obligations under the SCM Agreement, as set out in paragraphs 8.1(a), 
(b), and (c) of the Panel Report, these actions of the United States constitute prima facie 
nullification or impairment of benefits accrui ng to the European Communities, pursuant to 
Article 3.8 of the DSU; and, because the United States has failed to rebut this presumption, 
the United States has in fact nullified or impaired benefits accruing to the European Communities under the SCM Agreement.  
The Appellate Body recommended that the DSB requ est the United States to bring its measures and 
administrative practice (the "same person" methodolog y) into conformity with its obligations under 
that Agreement. On 8 January 2003, the DSB a dopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel 
Report, as modified by the Appellate Body Report.  
32. WT/DS211 – Egypt – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Steel Rebar from Turkey 
Complaint by Turkey. On 6 November 2000, Turkey  requested consultations with Egypt concerning 
an anti-dumping investigation by the Egyptian Ministry of Trade and Supply with respect to imports 
of rebar from Turkey. The investigation was comp leted and the final report released on 21 October 
1999. As a result of the investigation, anti-dumping duties were imposed, ranging from 22.63-61.00 per cent ad valorem.  
Turkey considered that:  
• Egypt made determinations of injury and du mping in that investigation without a proper 
establishment of the facts and based on an ev aluation of the facts that was neither unbiased 
nor objective;  
• during the investigation of material injury or threat thereof and the causal link, Egypt acted 
inconsistently with Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 6.1 and 6.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; and  
• during the investigation of sales at less than normal value, Egypt violated Article X:3 of the 
GATT 1994, as well as Articles 2.2, 2.4, 6.1, 6.2,  6.6, 6.7 and 6.8, a nd Annex II, Paragraphs 
1, 3, 5, 6 and 7 and Annex I, Paragr aph 7 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. 
On 3 May 2001, Turkey requested the establishmen t of a panel. At its meeting on 16 May 2001, the 
DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Further to  a second request to establish a panel by Turkey, 
the DSB established a panel at its meeting of 20 J une 2001. Chile, the EC, Japan and the US reserved 
their third party rights. On 18 July 2001, the Panel was composed.  
On 8 August 2002, the Panel Report was circulated  to WTO Members. The Panel concluded that 
Egypt did not act inconsistently with its obligations under:   WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page 107 
 
 
 (a) Article 3.4 of the AD Agreement, as Turkey ha s not established that the Egyptian Investigating 
Authority was required to examine and evaluate the particular factors identified by Turkey as 
"relevant factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the domestic industry";  
(b) Article 3.2 of the AD Agreement, as Turkey h as not established that there was a legal obligation 
on the Egyptian Investigating Authority to perform the price undercutting analysis in the way asserted 
by Turkey;  
(c) Article 3.1 of the AD Agreement, as Turkey ha s not established that the Egyptian Investigating 
Authority's price undercutting finding was not based on positive evidence;  
(d) Articles 6.1 and 6.2 of the AD Agreement in respect  of the alleged change in scope of the injury 
investigation from threat of material injury to presen t material injury and noti ce thereof to the Turkish 
exporters;  
(e) Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the AD Agreement, as Turkey has not establish ed that the Egyptian 
Investigating Authority violated the positive eviden ce requirement of Article 3.1 by virtue of the 
Investigating Authority not developing certain specif ic kinds of evidence, nor has Turkey established 
that, as a consequence, Egypt violated the requirement of Article 3.5 to demonstrate a causal 
relationship between the dumped imports and the injury to the domestic industry;  
(f) Article 3.5 of the AD Agreement, as Turkey h as not established that the Egyptian Investigating 
Authority's evaluation of the possible causation of injury by factors other than the dumped imports 
was inconsistent with Article 3.5;  
(g) Article 3.1 and 3.5 of the AD Agreement, as Turkey has not established that the Egyptian 
Investigating Authority was obligated by Articles 3.1 and 3.5 to perform an analysis and make a 
finding of the type asserted by Turkey in respect of whether the imports caused injury "through the 
effects of dumping";  
(h) Article 6.8 of the AD Agreement and paragraph 5 of  Annex II thereto, with regard to three of the 
Turkish exporters, as an unbiased and objective inves tigating authority could have found that these 
three exporters failed to provide necessary information and that resort to facts available was therefore 
justified in calculating the cost of produc tion in respect of these three exporters;  
(i) Article 6.1.1 of the AD Agreement, as the request for information at issue was not a 
"questionnaire" in the sense of this provision, and the minimum time-period provided for in Article 6.1.1 was therefore not applicable to  this request for information;  
(j) Article 6.2 of the AD Agreement, or paragraph 6 of Annex II thereto, with regard to the 19 August 
1999 request for information, as Turkey has not established that the time-period allowed by the 
Egyptian Investigating Authority for submission of the requested information was unreasonable or, as 
a consequence, that the Egyptian Investigating Auth ority failed to provide the Turkish exporters with 
a full opportunity for the defence of their interests;  
(k) Article 6.2 of the AD Agreement, or paragra ph 6 of Annex II thereto, with regard to the 23 
September 1999 request for information, as Turkey has not established that the time-period allowed 
by the Egyptian Investigating Authority for th e submission of the requested information was 
unreasonable or, as a consequence, that the Egyptia n Investigating Authority failed to provide the 
Turkish exporters with a full opportunity for the defence of their interests;  WT/DS/OV/25 
Page 108  
 
 (l) Paragraph 3 of Annex II to the AD Agreement, as this provision does not apply to the selection of 
particular information as "facts available";  
(m) Paragraph 7 of Annex II to the AD Agreement,  as Turkey has not established that the Egyptian 
Investigating Authority failed to use "special circ umspection" in estimating the prevailing inflation 
rate in Turkey, which was applied to the data re ported by one respondent, at 5 per cent per month;  
(n) Article 6.7 of the AD Agreement, paragraph 7 of Annex I thereto, and paragraphs 1 and 6 of 
Annex II thereto, as Turkey has not established that  these provisions contain the obligations asserted 
by Turkey, i.e., Turkey has not established that it is  mandatory for investigating authorities to conduct 
"on-the-spot" verification of information submitted, that investigating authorities are precluded from requesting additional information during the course of the investigation, that the rights of the Turkish 
exporters were seriously prejudiced, or that the actions of the Egyptian Investigating Authority 
impaired their "opportunity to provide further explanations";  
(o) Article 2.4 of the AD Agreement, as Turkey has not established that the burden of proof 
requirement of that provision is applicable to the request for certain cost information by the Egyptian 
Investigating Authority in its letter of 19 August 1999 , nor, even if that requirement were applicable, 
that the request imposed an unreasonable bur den of proof on the Turkish respondents; 
(p) Article 6.2 of the AD Agreement and paragr aph 6 of Annex II thereto, as Turkey has not 
established that the Egyptian Investigating Author ity denied requests of Turkish exporters for 
meetings;  
(q) Article 2.4 of the AD Agreement, as Turkey has not made a prima facie case that the Egyptian 
Investigating Authority violated this provision in failing to make an adjustment to normal value for 
differences in terms of sale;  
(r) Articles 2.2.1.1 and 2.2.2 of the AD Agreement, as Turkey has not made a prima facie case that the 
Egyptian Investigating Authority viol ated these provisions in deciding not  to make an interest income 
offset in calculating cost of producti on and constructed nor mal value; and  
(s) Article X:3 of GATT 1994 as Turkey has not establis hed that Egypt administer ed its relevant laws, 
regulations, decisions or rulings in a non-uniform , non-impartial or unreasonable manner in deciding 
not to accept an offer of certain respondents to trav el to Cairo for a meeting with the Investigating 
Authority.  
The Panel concluded that Egypt acted inc onsistently with its obligations under:  
(t) Article 3.4 of the AD Agreement, in that while it gathered data on all of the factors listed in Article 
3.4, the Egyptian Investigating Authority failed to eval uate all of the factors listed in Article 3.4 as it 
did not evaluate productivity, actual and potential negative effects on cash flow, employment, wages, 
and ability to raise capital or investments; and  
(u) Article 6.8 of the AD Agreement, and paragraph 6 of Annex II thereto, with regard to two of the 
Turkish exporters, as the Egyptian Investigating Author ity, having received the information that it had 
identified to these two respondents as being necessary, nevertheless found that they had failed to 
provide the necessary information, and further, did not inform these two exporters of this finding and 
did not give them the required opportunity to provide  further explanations before resorting to facts 
available.  
With respect to those of Turkey's claims not addressed above, the Panel concluded that:   WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page 109 
 
 
 (v) the claim was not within its terms of refe rence (claim under AD Article 17.6(i), claim under 
Article X:3 of GATT 1994 in respect of selection of particular facts available), or was abandoned by 
Turkey (claim under Article X:3 in respect  of resort to facts available); or  
(w) in the light of considerations of judicial economy, it was neither necessary nor appropriate to 
make findings. The Panel recommended Egypt to  bring its definitive anti-dumping measures on 
imports of steel rebar from Turkey into conformity with the relevant provisions of the AD Agreement.  
On 1 October 2002, the DSB adopted the Panel Report.  
33. WT/DS207 – Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard Measures Relating to Certain 
Agricultural Products 
Complaint by Argentina. On 5 October 2000, Argentina requested consultations with Chile 
concerning:  
• the price band system established by Law 18.525 (as subsequently amended by Law 18.591 
and Law 19.546), as well as implementing regulatio ns and complementary and/or amending 
provisions; and  
• the provisional safeguard measures adopted on 19 November 1999 by Decree No. 339 of the 
Ministry of Economy and the definitive safe guard measures imposed on 20 January 2000 by 
Decree No. 9 of the Ministry of Economy on th e importation of various products, including 
wheat, wheat flour and edible vegetal oils.  
Argentina considered that these measures raised qu estions concerning the obligations of Chile under 
various agreements. According to Argentina, the provisions with which the measures relating to the 
said price band system are inconsistent, include, but ar e not limited to, the following: Article II of the 
GATT 1994, and Article 4 of the Agreement on Agricu lture. According to Argentina, the provisions 
with which the safeguard measures are inconsistent , include, but are not limited to, the following: 
Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 12 of the Safeguards Agreement, and Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994.  
On 19 January 2001, Argentina requested the establis hment 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 Argentina, the DSB established a panel at its meeting of 12 March 2001. Australia, Brazil, 
Colombia, Costa Rica, the EC, Ecuador, El Sa lvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Japan, Nicaragua, 
Paraguay, the US and Venezuela reserved their third party rights. On 7 May 2001, Argentina 
requested the Director-General to  determine the composition of the Panel. On 17 May 2001, the Panel 
was composed.  
On 23 November 2001, the Panel informed the DSB that  it would not be able to complete its work in 
six months due to the scheduling requests of the part ies. The Panel expected to complete its work by 
the end of March 2002. On 3 May 2002, the Panel circulated its report to Members. The Panel 
concluded that:  
(a) the Chilean PBS is inconsistent with Article  4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture and Article 
II:1(b) of GATT 1994; (b) as regards the Chilean safeguard measures on wheat, wheat flour and 
edible vegetable oils:  
1. Chile has acted inconsistently with Article 3. 1 of the Agreement on Safeguards by not making 
available the relevant minutes of the sessions of the CDC through an appropriate medium so as to constitute a "published" report;  WT/DS/OV/25 
Page 110  
 
 2. Chile has acted inconsistently with Article  XIX:1(a) of GATT 1994 because the CDC failed 
to demonstrate the existence of unforeseen de velopments, and Article 3.1 of the Agreement 
on Safeguards because the CDC's report did not set  out findings and reasoned conclusions in 
this respect in its report;  
3. Chile has acted inconsistently with Article XIX:1(a) of GATT 1994 and Articles 2 and 4 of 
the Agreement on Safeguards because the CDC fa iled to demonstrate the likeness or direct 
competitiveness of the products produced by the domestic industry, and, consequently, failed to identify the domestic industry;  
4. Chile has acted inconsistently with Article XIX:1(a) of GATT 1994 and Articles 2.1 and 
4.2(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards because th e CDC failed to demonstrate the increase in 
imports of the products subject to the safegua rd measures required by those provisions;  
5. Chile has acted inconsistently with Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994 and Article 4.1(a), 
4.1(b) and 4.2(a) of the Agreement on Safe guards because the CDC did not demonstrate the 
existence of a threat of serious injury;  
6. Chile has acted inconsistently with Articles 2.1 and 4.2(b) of the Agreement on Safeguards 
because the CDC did not demonstrate a causal link;  
7. Chile has acted inconsistently with Article XIX:1(a) of GATT 1994 and Article 5.1 of the 
Agreement on Safeguards because the CDC did not ensure that the measures were limited to 
the extent necessary to prevent or reme dy injury and facilitate adjustment;  
8. Argentina failed to establish that Chile has act ed inconsistently with the requirement of 
Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Agre ement on Safeguards to conduct an  "appropriate investigation" 
because Argentina allegedly did not have a full oppor tunity to participate in the investigation 
and did not have access to any public summary of the confidential information on which the 
Chilean authorities may have based their determination.  
On 24 June 2002, Chile notified its decision to app eal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law 
covered in the Panel Report a nd certain legal interpretations  developed by the Panel.  
On 23 September 2002 the report of the Appellate Body was circulated. The Appellate Body:  
(a) found that the Panel acted inc onsistently with Article 11 of the DSU by making its finding, in 
paragraph 7.108 of the Panel Report, that the du ties resulting from Chile's price band system are 
inconsistent with Article II:1(b) of the GATT 1994, on the basis of the second sentence of that 
provision, which was not before the Panel, and, therefore, reverses this finding;  
(b) decided that the Panel did not err in choosing to examine Argentina's cl aim under Article 4.2 of 
the Agreement on Agriculture before examining Ar gentina's claim under Article II:1(b) of the GATT 
1994;  
(c) with respect to Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture:  
• upheld the Panel's finding, in para graphs 7.47 and 7.65 of the Pa nel Report, that Chile's price 
band system is a border measure that is simila r to variable import levies and minimum import 
prices;   WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page 111 
 
 
 • reversed the Panel's finding, in paragraphs 7.52 and 7.60 of the Panel Report, that an 
"ordinary customs duty" is to be understood as "referring to a customs duty which is not 
applied on the basis of factors of an exogenous nature";  
• upheld the Panel's finding, in paragraphs 7.102 and 8.1(a) of the Panel Report, that Chile's 
price band system is inconsistent with Artic le 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture;  
(d) decided, in the light of these findings, that it was not necessary to rule on whether Chile's price 
band system is consistent with the first sen tence of Article II:1(b) of the GATT 1994.  
The Appellate Body recommended that the DSB request Chile to bring its price band system, as 
found, in its and in the Panel Report as modified by its Report, to be inconsis tent with the Agreement 
on Agriculture, into conformity with its  obligations under that Agreement.  
At its meeting on 23 October 2002, the DSB adop ted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel 
Report, as modified by the Appellate Body Report.  
34. WT/DS206 – United States – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Measures on Steel Plate 
from India 
Complaint by India. On 4 October 2000, India requested consultations with the United States 
concerning:  
• final affirmative determinations of sales of certain cut-to-length carbon quality steel plate 
products from India at less than fair value by US Department of Commerce (DOC) on 13 
December 1999 and affirmed on 10 February 2000;  
• interpretation and use of provisions relating to facts available in the anti-dumping and 
countervailing duty investigations by DOC; and  
• determination and interpretation by the US  International Trade Commission (ITC) of 
negligibility, cumulation and material injury caused by the said Indian steel imports.  
India considered that these determinations are e rroneous and based on deficient procedures contained 
in various provisions of US anti-dumping and coun tervailing duty law. Ac cording to India, these 
determinations and provisions ra ise questions concerning the obligations of the United States under 
the GATT 1994, the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the SCM Agreement, and the Agreement establishing 
the WTO (WTO Agreement). India considered that  the provisions of these agreements with which 
these measures and determinations appear to be inconsistent, include, but are not limited to, the 
following: Articles VI and X of the GATT 1994; Articles 1, 2, 3 (especially 3.3), 5 (especially 5.8), 6 (especially 6.8), 12, 15, 18.4 and Annex II of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; Articles 10, 11 (especially 11.9), 15 (especially 15.3), 22 and 27 ( especially 27.10) of the SCM Agreement; Article 
XVI of the WTO Agreement.  
Further to India's request, the DSB established a Pa nel at its meeting of 24 July 2001. Chile, the EC 
and Japan reserved their third-rights. On 16 Octobe r 2001, India requested the Director-General to 
determine the composition of the Panel. On 26 October 2001, the Director-General composed the Panel. On 16 April 2002, the Chairman of the Pane l informed the DSB that the Panel would not be 
able to complete its work in six months in li ght of scheduling conflicts. The Panel expected to 
complete its work in June 2002 , depending on translation.  
On 28 June 2002, the Panel circulated its re port to Members. The Panel concluded that:  WT/DS/OV/25 
Page 112  
 
 • the United States statutory provisions governing th e use of facts available, sections 776(a) and 
782(d) and (e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as ame nded, are not inconsistent with Articles 6.8 
and paragraphs 3, 5, and 7 of Annex II of the AD Agreement.  
• the United States did not act inconsistently with  Article 15 of the AD Agreement with respect 
to India in the anti-dumping investigation underlying this dispute.  
The Panel also concluded that the "practice" of the USDOC concerning the application of "total facts 
available" was not a measure which can give rise to an independent claim of violation of the AD 
Agreement, and have therefore not rule d on India's claim in this regard.  
With respect to India's claims not a ddressed above, the Panel concluded that:  
• it would not rule on India's abandoned claim; and  
• in light of considerations of judicial econom y, it was neither necessary nor appropriate to 
make findings with respect to the remainde r of India's claims. The Panel therefore 
recommended that the DSB request the United States to bring its measure into conformity with its obligations under the AD Agreement.  
At its meeting on 29 July 2002, the DSB adopted the Panel report.  35. WT/DS204 – Mexico – Measures Affecting Telecommunications Services 
Complaint by the United States. On 17 August 2000, the US requested consultations with Mexico in 
respect of Mexico's commitments and obligations  under the GATS with respect to basic and value-
added telecommunications services. According to the United States, since the entry into force of the 
GATS, Mexico has adopted or maintained anti-co mpetitive and discriminatory regulatory measures, 
tolerated certain privately-established market access  barriers, and failed to take needed regulatory 
action in Mexico's basic and value-added telecomm unications sectors. The US claimed that Mexico 
had, for example:  
• enacted and maintained laws, regulations, rules,  and other measures that deny or limit market 
access, national treatment, and additional co mmitments for service suppliers seeking to 
provide basic and value-added telecommunica tions services into and within Mexico;  
• failed to issue and enact regulations, permits, or  other measures to ensure implementation of 
Mexico's market access, national treatment, and additional commitments for service suppliers seeking to provide basic and value-added telecommunications services into and within Mexico;  
• failed to enforce regulations and other measures to ensure compliance with Mexico's market 
access, national treatment, and additional co mmitments for service suppliers seeking to 
provide basic and value-added telecommunica tions services into and within Mexico;  
• failed to regulate, control and prevent its majo r supplier, Teléfonos de México ("Telmex"), 
from engaging in activity that denies or limits Mexico's market access, national treatment, and additional commitments for service suppliers seeking to provide basic and value-added 
telecommunications services into and within Mexico; and  
• failed to administer measures of general a pplication governing basic and value-added 
telecommunications services in a reasonable, objective, and impartial manner, ensure that  WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page 113 
 
 
 decisions and procedures used by Mexico's telecommunications regulator are impartial with 
respect to all market participants, and ensure  access to and use of public telecommunications 
transport networks and services on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions 
for the supply of basic and value-a dded telecommunications services.  
The United States considered that the alleged act ion and inaction on the part of Mexico may be 
inconsistent with Mexico's GATS commitments and obligations, including Articles VI, XVI, and 
XVII; Mexico's additional commitments under Arti cle XVIII as set forth in the Reference Paper 
inscribed in Mexico's Schedule of Specific Commitme nts, including Sections 1, 2, 3, and 5; and the 
GATS Annex on Telecommunications, including Sections 4 and 5.  
On 10 November 2000, the United States requested th e establishment of a panel. On the same date, 
the United States notified to the DSB a request for consultations concerning several recent measures 
adopted by Mexico affecting trade in telecomm unication services. At its  meeting on 12 December 
2000, the DSB deferred establishment of a panel. On 13 February 2002, the United States requested 
the establishment of a panel. In particular, the Un ited States claimed that Mexico's measures had:  
• failed to ensure that Telmex provides inte rconnection to US cross-border basic telecom 
suppliers on reasonable rat es, terms and conditions;  
• failed to ensure US basic telecom suppliers reasonable and non-discriminatory access to and 
use of public telecom networks and services;  
• did not provide national treatment to US-owned commercial agencies; and  
• did not prevent Telmex from engaging in anti-competitive practices.  
At its meeting on 8 March 2002, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Further to a second 
request by the US, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 17 April 2002. Canada, Cuba, the 
EC, Guatemala, Japan and Nicaragua reserved th eir third-party rights to participate in the 
proceedings. On 18 April 2002, India joined as a third party to the disp ute. On 19 April 2002, 
Honduras joined as a third party to the dispute. On 23 April 2002, Australia joined as a third party. On 24 April 2002, Brazil joined as a third party. On 16 August 2002, the US requested the Director 
General to determine the composition of the pa nel. On 26 August 2002, the panel was composed. 
On 13 March 2003, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that it would not be possible to 
complete its work in six months due to the time need ed for translation into Spanish and English of all 
relevant documents and the complexity of the issu es involved. The Panel expected to complete its 
work in August 2003. On 6 August 2003, the Chairm an of the Panel informed the DSB that the Panel 
expected to complete its work in December 2003.  
On 2 April 2004, the Panel report was circulated to Members. The Panel ruled that Mexico violated its 
GATS commitments because:  
• Mexico failed to ensure interconnection at cost -oriented rates for the cross-border supply of 
facilities-based basic telecom services, contrary to Article 2.2(b) of its Reference Paper;  
• Mexico failed to maintain appr opriate measures to prevent anti-competitive practices by firms 
that are a major telecom supplier, contrary to Article 1.1 of its Reference Paper; and  WT/DS/OV/25 
Page 114  
 
 • Mexico failed to ensure reasonable and non-discriminatory access to and use of 
telecommunications networks, contrary to Ar ticle 5(a) and (b) of the GATS Annex on 
Telecommunications.  
In respect of cross-border telecom services supplie d on a non-facilities basis in Mexico, however, the 
Panel ruled that Mexico did not violate its obliga tions because it had not taken commitments for these 
services.  
On 1 June 2004, the DSB adopted the Panel Report.  
36. WT/DS202 – United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures On Imports Of Circular 
Welded Carbon Quality Line Pipe From Korea 
Complaint by Korea. On 13 June 2000, Korea requ ested consultations with the United States in 
respect of concerns the definitive safeguard me asure imposed by the United States on imports of 
circular welded carbon quality line pipe (line pipe ). Korea noted that on 18 February 2000 the United 
States proclaimed a definitive safeguard measure on imports of line pipe (subheadings 7306.10.10 and 
7306.10.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States). In that proclamation, the United 
States announced that the proposed date of introduc tion of the measure was 1 March 2000 and that the 
measure was expected to remain in effect for 3 years and 1 day. Korea considered that the US 
procedures and determinations that led to the imposition of the safeguard measure as well as the 
measure itself contravened various  provisions contained in the Safeguards Agreement and the GATT 
1994. In particular, Korea considers that the me asure is inconsistent with the United States' 
obligations under Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 11 and 12 of  the Safeguards Agreement; and Articles I, XIII and 
XIX of the GATT 1994.  
Further to Korea's request, the DSB established a pa nel at its meeting of 23 October 2000. Australia, 
Canada, EC, Japan and Mexico reserved their third- party rights. On 12 January 2001, Korea requested 
the Director-General to determine the composition of the Panel. On 22 January 2001, the Panel was 
composed.  
On 29 October 2001, the Panel circulated its report to  the Members. The Panel concluded that the US 
line pipe measure was imposed inconsistently with certain provisions of GATT 1994 and/or the 
Safeguards Agreement, in particular:  
• the line pipe measure is not consistent with the general rule contained in the chapeau of 
Article XIII:2 because it has been applied wit hout respecting traditional trade patterns;  
• the line pipe measure is not consistent with Article XIII2:(a) because it has been applied 
without fixing the total amount of impor ts permitted at the lower tariff rate;  
• the US acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 4.2(c) by failing to include in its published 
report a finding or reasoned conc lusion either (i) that increased imports have caused serious 
injury, or (ii) that increased imports ar e threatening to cause serious injury;  
• the US acted inconsistently with Article 4.2( b) by failing to establish a causal link between 
the increased imports and the serious  injury, or threat thereof;  
• the US has not complied with its obligations under Article 9.1 by applying the measure to 
developing countries whose imports do not exceed the individual and collective thresholds in that provision;   WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page 115 
 
 
 • the US acted inconsistently with its obligati ons under Article XIX by failing to demonstrate 
the existence of unforeseen developments prior to  the application of the line pipe measure;  
• the US has acted inconsistently with its obliga tions under Article 12.3 by failing to provide an 
adequate opportunity for prior consultations w ith Members having a substantial interest as 
exporters of line pipe;  
• the US has acted inconsistently with its obligati ons under Article 8.1 to endeavour to maintain 
a substantially equivalent level of  concessions and other obligations;  
All other claims by Korea were rejected by the Pane l. The Panel also declined  Korea's request for the 
Panel to find that the US safeguard measure s hould be lifted immediately and the ITC safeguard 
investigation on line pipe terminated.  
On 6 November 2001, the US notified its decision to appeal certain findings of law and legal 
interpretations contained in the Panel Report. Ho wever, on 13 November 2001, it withdrew its notice 
of appeal. Later, on 19 November 2001, the US notified its decision to re-file its appeal to the Appellate Body. On 18 January 2002, the Appellate Body informed the DSB that there would be a 
delay in the circulation of the report. Accordingly,  the Appellate Body informed that the report would 
be circulated to the Members no later than 15 Fe bruary 2002. On 15 February 2002, the Appellate 
Body circulated its report to the Members. The Appellate Body:  
• upheld, albeit for different reasons, the Panel' s finding, in paragraph 8.1(7) of the Panel 
Report, that the United States acted inconsistently  with its obligation under Article 12.3 of the 
Agreement on Safeguards by failing to provi de an adequate opportunity for prior 
consultations with Korea, a Member having a s ubstantial interest in exports of line pipe;  
• upheld the Panel's finding, in paragraph 8.1(8)  of the Panel Report, that the United States 
acted inconsistently with its obligation under Article 8.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards to 
endeavour to maintain a substantially equivale nt level of concessions and other obligations;  
• upheld the Panel's finding, in paragraph 8.1(5) of the Panel Report, that the United States did 
not comply with its obligation under Article  9.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards that 
safeguard measures shall not be applied against a product originating in a developing country 
Member as long as its imports do not exceed the individual and collective thresholds in that 
provision;  
• reversed the Panel's finding, in paragraph 8.1(3)  of the Panel Report, that the United States 
acted inconsistently with its obligations under Articles 3.1 and 4.2(c) of the Agreement on 
Safeguards by failing to include in its published report a finding or reasoned conclusion either 
(1) that increased imports have caused serious injury, or (2) that increased imports are 
threatening to cause serious injury;  
• reversed the Panel's finding, in paragraph 8.2(9)  of the Panel Report, that the United States 
did not violate its obligations under Articl es 2 and 4 of the Agreement on Safeguards by 
exempting Canada and Mexico from the line pipe measure;  
• modified the Panel's finding, in paragraph 8.2(1 )) of the Panel Report, that the United States 
did not violate its obligations under Article s I, XIII:1 and XIX of GATT 1994 by exempting 
Canada and Mexico from the line pipe measur es, declaring it moot and as having no legal 
effect;  WT/DS/OV/25 
Page 116  
 
 • upheld the Panel's finding, in paragraph 8.1(4)  of the Panel Report, that the United States 
acted inconsistently with its obligation under Article 4.2(b) of the Agreement on Safeguards 
by failing to establish a causal link between th e increased imports and the serious injury or 
threat thereof;  
• upheld the Panel's finding, in paragraph 7.81 of  the Panel Report, that the United States was 
not required by Article 5.1, first sentence, of the Agreement on Safeguards to demonstrate, at 
the time of imposition, that the line pipe measur e was necessary to prevent or remedy serious 
injury and to facilitate adjustment;  
• reversed the Panel's finding, in paragraph 8.2( 2) of the Panel Report, that Korea failed to 
make a prima facie case that the United States violated its obligation under Article 5.1, first 
sentence, of the Agreement on Safeguards, by imposing a measure that exceeds what is 
"necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury a nd to facilitate adjustment", and finds that the 
United States applied the line pipe measure beyond the "extent necessary to prevent or 
remedy serious injury and to facilitate adjustment".  
On 8 March 2002, the DSB adopted the Appellate Bo dy Report and the Panel Report, as modified by 
the Appellate Body Report.  
37. WT/DS194 – United States – Measures Treating Export Restraints as Subsidies 
Complaint by Canada. On 19 May 2000, Canada re quested consultations with the US regarding 
certain US measures that treat a restraint on exports  of a product as a subsidy to other products made 
using or incorporating the restricted product if the domestic price of the restricted product is affected by the restraint. The measures at issue included pr ovisions of the Statement of Administrative Action 
(SAA) accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) (H.R. 5110, H.R. Doc. 316, Vol. 
1, 103d Cong., 2d Sess., 656, in particular at 925-926 (1994)) and the Explanation of the Final Rules, US Department of Commerce, Countervailing Duties,  Final Rule (63 Federal Register 65,348 at 
65,349-51 (Nov. 25, 1998)) interpreting section 771(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 USC. § 1677(5)), 
as amended by the URAA. Canada's claims were as follows:  
• Canada considered that these measures were in consistent with US ob ligations under Articles 
1.1, 10, (as well as Articles 11, 17 and 19, as they relate to the requirements of Article 10), and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement because these measures provide that the US will impose 
countervailing duties against practices that are not subsidies within the meaning of Article 1.1 
of the SCM Agreement.  
• Canada also considered that the US has faile d to ensure that its laws, regulations and 
administrative procedures are in conformity w ith its WTO obligations as required by Article 
32.5 of the SCM Agreement and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.  
On 24 July 2000, Canada requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 4 August 2000, the 
DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Further to a second request to est ablish a panel by Canada, 
the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 11  September 2000. Australia, the EC and India 
reserved their third-party rights. On 23 October 2000 , the Panel was composed. The Panel circulated 
its report on 29 June 2001. The Panel concluded that:  
• an export restraint as defined in this dis pute cannot constitute government-entrusted or 
government-directed provision of goods in the se nse of subparagraph (iv) and hence does not 
constitute a financial contribution in the sense of  Article 1.1(a) of the SCM Agreement; and   WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page 117 
 
 
 • Section 771(5)(B)(iii) read in light of the SAA and the Preamble to the US CVD Regulations 
is not inconsistent with Article 1.1 of the SCM Agreement by "requir[ing] the imposition of 
countervailing duties against practices that are not  subsidies within the meaning of Article 
1.1".  
• with respect to those of Canada's claims not  addressed above, the Panel concluded that in 
light of considerations of judicial economy, it was neither necessary nor appropriate to make 
findings thereon. The Panel therefore made no recommendations with respect to the US' 
obligations under the SCM and WTO Agreements.  
The DSB adopted the Panel Report on 23 August 2001.  
38. WT/DS192 – United States – Transitional Sa feguard Measure on Combed Cotton Yarn 
from Pakistan 
Complaint by Pakistan. On 3 April 2000, Pakistan re quested consultations with the US in respect of a 
transitional safeguard measure applied by the Unite d States, as of 17 March 1999, on combed cotton 
yarn (United States category 301) from Pakistan  (see US Federal Register of 12 March 1999, 
document 99-6098). In accordance with Article 6.10  of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing 
(ATC), the United States had notified the TMB on 5 March 1999 that it had decided to unilaterally 
impose a restraint, after consultations as to whethe r the situation called for a restraint had failed to 
produce a mutually satisfactory solution. In April 1999, the TMB examined th e US restraint pursuant 
to Article 6.10 of the ATC and recommended that  the US restraint should be rescinded. On 28 May 
1999, in accordance with Article 8.10 of the AT C, the United States notified the TMB that it 
considered itself unable to conform to the recomm endations issued by the TMB. Despite a further 
recommendation of the TMB pursuant to Article 8.10 of  the ATC that the United States reconsider its 
position, the United States continued to maintain its unilateral restra int and thus the matter remained 
unresolved.  
Pakistan claimed as follows:  
• the transitional safeguards applied by the Un ited States are inconsistent with the United 
States' obligations under Articles 2.4 of the ATC and not justified by Article 6 of the ATC;  
• the US restraint does not meet the requireme nts for transitional safeguards set out in 
paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 7 of Article 6 of the ATC.  
On 3 April 2000, Pakistan requested the establishmen t of a panel. At its meeting on 18 May 2000, the 
DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. Further to a second request to establish a panel by Pakistan, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 19 June 2000. India and the EC reserved their 
third-party rights. On 30 August 2000, the Panel was composed.  
The Panel circulated its report on 31 May 2001. Th e Panel concluded that the transitional safeguard 
measure (quantitative restriction) imposed by the US  on imports of combed cotton yarn from Pakistan 
as of 17 March 1999, and extended as of 17 March 2000 for a further year is inconsistent with the 
provisions of Article 6 of the ATC. Specifically, the Panel found that:  
• Inconsistently with its obliga tions under 6.2, the US excluded the production of combed 
cotton yarn by vertically integrated producers for their own use from the scope of the "domestic industry producing like and/or dir ectly competitive products" with imported 
combed cotton yarn;  WT/DS/OV/25 
Page 118  
 
 • Inconsistently with its obligations under Article  6.4, the US did not examine the effect of 
imports from Mexico (and possibly other appropriate Members) individually;  
• Inconsistently with its obligations under Articles 6.2 and 6.4, the US did not demonstrate that 
the subject imports caused an "actual threat" of serious damage to the domestic industry. 
With respect to the other claims, the Panel found th at Pakistan did not estab lish that the measure at 
issue was inconsistent with the US obligations un der Article 6 of the ATC. Specifically, the Panel 
found that: (a) Pakistan did not establish that th e US determination of serious damage was not 
justified based on the data used by the US investig ating authority; (b) Pakistan did not establish that 
the US determination of serious damage was not  justified regarding the evaluation by the US 
investigating authority of establishments that ce ased producing combed cotton yarn; (c) Pakistan did 
not establish that the US determinations of serious  damage and causation th ereof were not justified 
based upon an inappropriately chosen period of in vestigation and period of incidence of serious 
damage and causation thereof.  
The Panel recommended that the DSB request that the US bring the measure at issue into conformity 
with its obligations under the ATC, and suggested that  this can best be achieved by prompt removal of 
the import restriction.  
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 woul d not be able to circulate its report within the 
7 September deadline. The Report was circulated  to Members on 8 October 2001. The Appellate 
Body upheld the Panel's overall c onclusion that the transitional saf eguard measure taken by the 
United States with respect to imports of combed co tton yarn from Pakistan was inconsistent with the 
ATC. In particular, the Appellate Body upheld th e Panel's findings that, in taking safeguard action 
with respect to imports of yarn from Pakistan, th e US: (a) failed to define properly the relevant 
"domestic industry" producing yarn; and (b) failed to examine the effect of imports of yarn from other 
major suppliers individually when attributing serious  damage to imports from Pakistan. Furthermore, 
the Appellate Body concluded that  the Panel should not have consid ered data which were not in 
existence at the time when the US determined that serious damage had been caused to the domestic 
industry. It declined to rule on the broader issue of whether an importing Member must attribute serious damage to all Members whose exports cont ributed to that damage and concluded therefore 
that the Panel's interpretation of this broader issue was of no legal effect.  
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and th e Panel Report, as modified by the Appellate 
Body Report, on 5 November 2001.  
At the DSB meeting on 21 November 2001, the US  stated that it had implemented the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings. Specifically, on  8 November 2001, the Committee for the 
Implementation of Textile Agreemen ts, chaired by the Department of Commerce, had directed the US 
Customs Service to eliminate the limit on imports of combed cotton yarn from Pakistan. This action 
was effective from 9 November 2001.  
39. 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 26 Janua ry 2000, the EC requested consultations with 
Argentina in respect of Argentina's definitive an ti-dumping measures on imports of ceramic floor tiles 
from Italy imposed on 12 November 1999. The EC claimed that the Argentinian investigating  WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page 119 
 
 
 authority without justification disregarded all the information on normal value and on export prices 
provided by the exporters included in the sample; fail ed to calculate an individual dumping margin for 
each of the exporters included in the sample; faile d to make due allowance for the differences in 
physical characteristics between the models exported to Argentina and those sold in Italy; and failed 
to inform the Italian exporters of the essential facts concerning the existence of dumping which 
formed the basis for the decision whether to apply definitive measures. The EC considered that the 
anti-dumping measures in question were  inconsistent with Articles 2.4,  6.8 in conjunction with Annex 
II, 6.9 and 6.10 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  
On 7 November 2000, the EC requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 26 September 
2000, 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 17 November 2000 on the basis of the EC's 
reduced complaint which relates only to definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of ceramic floor 
tiles from Italy. Japan, Turkey and the US reserved their third-party rights. On 12 January 2001, the Panel was composed.  
The Panel circulated its report to Member s on 28 September 2001. The Panel found that:  
• Argentina acted inconsistently with Article 6.8 and Annex II of the Anti-Dumping Agreement 
by disregarding in large part the information pr ovided by the exporter for the determination of 
the normal value and export price, and this wit hout informing the exporters of the reasons for 
such a rejection;  
• Argentina acted inconsistently with Article  6.10 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by not 
determining an individual dumping margin for each sampled exporter;  
• Argentina acted inconsistently with Article 2. 4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by failing to 
make due allowance for difference in physical characteristics affecting price comparability;  
• Argentina acted inconsistently with Article  6.9 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by not 
disclosing to the exporters the essential facts unde r consideration which form the basis for the 
decision whether to apply definitive measures.  
On 5 November 2001, the DSB adopted the Panel Report.  
40. WT/DS184 – United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel 
Products from Japan 
Complaint by Japan. On 18 November 1999, Japan requ ested consultations with the US in respect of 
the preliminary and final determinations of the US  Department of Commerce and the US International 
Trade Commission on the anti-dumping investigation of Certain Hot Rolled Steel Products from 
Japan issued on 25 and 30 November 1998, 12 February 1999, 28 April 1999 and 23 June 1999. Japan 
considered that these determinations are erroneous  and based on deficient procedures under the US 
Tariff Act of 1930 and related regulations. The Japan ese complaint also concerned certain provisions 
of the Tariff Act of 1930 and related regulations. Japan  claimed violations of Articles VI and X of the 
GATT 1994 and Articles 2, 3, 6 (including Annex II) , 9 and 10 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  
On 11 February 2000, Japan requested the establishm ent of a panel. At its meeting on 24 February 
2000, 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 20 March 2000. Brazil, Canada, Chile, the EC 
and Korea reserved their third-party rights. On 9 Ma y 2000, Japan requested the Director-General to WT/DS/OV/25 
Page 120  
 
 determine the composition of the Panel. On 24 May 2000, the Panel was composed. The Panel 
circulated its report on 28 February 200 1. The Panel concluded as follows:  
• The US acted inconsistently with Articles 6.8 and Annex II of the AD Agreement in its 
application of "facts available" to Kawasaki Steel Corporation (KSC), Nippon Steel Corporation (NSC) and NKK Corporation;  
• Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Tariff Act of 19 30, as amended, which mandates that USDOC 
exclude only margins based entirely on facts ava ilable in determining an  all others rate, is 
inconsistent with Article 9.4 of the AD Agre ement, and that therefore the US has acted 
inconsistently with its obliga tions under Article 18.4 of the AD Agreement and Article XVI:4 
of the Marrakesh Agreement by failing to bri ng that provision into conformity with its 
obligations under the AD Agreement; and  
• The US acted inconsistently with Article 2.1 of the AD Agreement in excluding certain home-
market sales to affiliated parties from the calculation of normal value on the basis of the "arm's length" test. In addition, in light of the findings above, the pa nel concluded that the 
replacement of those sales with sales to una ffiliated downstream purchasers was inconsistent 
with Article 2.1 of the AD Agreement.  
• With respect to those of Japan's claims not a ddressed above the panel concluded: (1) that the 
claim was not within its terms of reference ("general practice" concerning adverse facts available; "general practice" of excluding cer tain home-market sales from the calculation of 
normal value), or (2) that, in light of consid erations of judicial economy, it is neither 
necessary nor appropriate to make findings.  
On 25 April 2001, the US notified its decision to app eal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law 
covered in the Panel Report and cer tain legal interpretations devel oped by the Panel. The Appellate 
Body circulated its Report on 24 July 2001. In th is regard, the Appellate Body upheld the Panel's 
findings except for the following:  
• It reversed the Panel's finding regarding the inconsistency with Article 2.1 of the Anti-
dumping Agreement of the US's methodology for calculating the normal value as regards the 
using of certain downstream sales made by an in vestigated exporters' affiliates to dependent 
purchasers;  
• It found that there was insufficient factual r ecord to allow completion of the analysis of 
Japan's claim under Article 2.4 of the Anti-dumping Agreement that the US did not make a fair comparison in its use of downstream sales when calculating normal value;  
• It reversed the Panel's finding that the US di d not act inconsistently with the Anti-dumping 
Agreement in its application of the captive produc tion provision in its determination of injury 
sustained by the US hot-rolled steel industry;  
• It reversed the Panel's finding that the US ITC demonstrated the existence of a causal 
relationship, under Article 3.5 of the said agre ement, between dumped imports and material 
injury to that industry; but found that there w as insufficient factual reco rd to allow completion 
of the analysis of Japan's claim on causation;  
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and th e Panel Report, as modified by the Appellate 
Body Report, on 23 August 2001.   WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page 121 
 
 
 41. 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 in consistently with its obligations under Article 
2.4.1, Article 2.4 chapeau ("fair comparison" ), and Article 12.2 of the AD Agreement nor 
with its obligations under Artic le X:3(a) of GATT 1994;  
• the US in the Sheet investigation acted inconsis tently with 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 allowances 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/25 
Page 122  
 
 • 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 inconsiste ntly 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.  
42. 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 Agreemen t on Safeguards, and Article s 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 Ar ticle 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/25 
 Page 123 
 
 
 increased imports threatened to cause serious in jury 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 f actors" 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 interp retations 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 States  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 Articl es 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 th e Panel erred 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 th e 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 th e causation requirements in the Agreement on 
Safeguards but, for different reasons, upheld th e Panel'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/25 
Page 124  
 
 • 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, and 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.  
43. 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 Oc tober 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 r ecognize 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 Agreement. 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 no tified 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 tradem arks, 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 th e 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 with 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 conjunction 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/25 
 Page 125 
 
 
 • 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.  
44. 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 Au stralia (WT/DS290). On 1 June 1999, the US 
requested consultations with the EC in respect of the alleged lack of protection of trademarks and 
geographical indications (GIs) for agricultural produc ts 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 sufficien t protection to pre-existing trademarks that are 
similar or identical to a geographical indication. The US considered this situat ion to be inconsistent 
with the EC's obligations under the TRIPS Agre ement, 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 inconsis tent 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 consultati ons 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 
constitutes an act of unfair competition within the meaning of Article 10bis of the Paris 
Convention (1967),  WT/DS/OV/25 
Page 126  
 
 • 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 a nd 65 of the TRIPS Agreement, Articles I and III of 
GATT 1994, Article 2 of the TBT Agreement a nd 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, Indi a, 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 a nd 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 th ird-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 informed 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 reports 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 Au stralia that the EC's GI Regulation does not 
provide national treatment to other WTO Memb ers' 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;  
• otherwise, there is no finding that the substance of the EC system of GI protection, which 
requires product inspection, is incons istent with WTO obligations; and   WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page 127 
 
 
 • 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 reports on 20 April 2005.  
45. WT/DS170 – Canada – Term of Patent Protection 
Complaint by the United States. On 6 May 1999, th e US requested consulta tions 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 f iling 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 th e Panel report, as upheld by the Appellate Body 
report, on 12 October 2000.  
46. WT/DS166 – United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Wheat 
Gluten from the European Communities 
Complaint by the European Communities. On 17 Ma rch 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 WT/DS/OV/25 
Page 128  
 
 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 Safeguards; 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 wi th 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 th e "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.  
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  WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page 129 
 
 
 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 c onclusions on the issue of causation;  
• found, nonetheless, that the US had acted incons istently 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, and,  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 Article  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.  
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.  WT/DS/OV/25 
Page 130  
 
 47. 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 GA TT 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 f ees 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  
• 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.   WT/DS/OV/25 
 Page 131 
 
 
 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 Measu re, 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.  
48. 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.  
• 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 WT/DS/OV/25 
Page 132  
 
 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 reas onably 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.  
49. 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 that 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 requirements 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.  
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and th e Panel report, as upheld by the Appellate Body 
report, on 26 September 2000.