WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
WT/DSB/M/307 
8 February 2012 
 (12-0765) 
Dispute Settlement Body 
18 November 2011  
 
 
 
MINUTES OF MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard 
on 18 November 2011 
 
Chairperson:  Mrs. Elin Østebø Johansen (Norway) 
 
 Subjects discussed: Page 
 
1.  Appointment of Appella te Body members .............................................................................. 1  
2.  Surveillance of implementation of recommendations adopted by the DSB ......................... 5  
(a)  United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropr iations Act of 1998:  Status report by 
the United States ............................................................................................................. ............ 6 
(b)  United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from 
Japan:  Status report by the Unite d States ................................................................................... 8 
(c)  United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act:  Status report by 
the United States ............................................................................................................. ............ 9 
(d)  European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products:  Status report by the European Union ......................................................................... 9  
(e)  United States – Measures relating to zeroing and sunset reviews:  Status report by 
the United States ............................................................................................................. .......... 10 
(f)  United States – Continued existence and a pplication of zeroing methodology:  Status 
report by the United States ................................................................................................... ..... 11 
(g)  United States – Laws, regulations and methodology for calculating dumping margins 
("zeroing"):  Status report by the United States ........................................................................ 11  
(h)  China – Measures affecting trading righ ts and distribution services for certain 
publications and audiovisual entertainment products:  Status report by China ........................ 12  
3.  United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000:  
Implementation of the recommenda tions adopted by the DSB .......................................... 12  
(a)  Statements by the European Union and Japan .......................................................................... 12  
 
 
1. Appointment of Appellate Body members 
1. The Chairperson recalled that at its meeting on 24 May 2011, the DSB had agreed to the 
Chair's proposal on procedures for selecting two new Appellate Body members.  Those procedures 
were as follows:  (i) to launch as from 24 May 2 011 the selection process for the appointment of two 
new members of the Appellate Body to replace Ms . Lilia Bautista and Ms . Jennifer Hillman whose 
terms of office would expire on 10 December 2011;  (ii) to set a deadline of 31 August 2011 for Members' nominations of candidates for those two po sitions;  (iii) to agree to establish a Selection WT/DSB/M/307 
Page 2  
 
  Committee, based on the procedures set out in document WT/DSB/1, consisting of the Director-
General and the 2011 Chairpersons of the General Council, the Goods Council, the Services Council, 
the TRIPS Council and the DSB, to be presided by th e 2011 DSB Chair;  (iv) to request the Selection 
Committee to conduct interviews with candida tes and to hear views of Members in 
September/October 2011;  and, (v) to make recommendations to the DSB by no later than 
10 November 2011 so that the DSB could take a final decision at the latest at its regular meeting in 
November 2011.  
2. The Chairperson recalled that, by the agreed deadline of 31 August 2011, four candidates had 
been nominated by three different WTO Members.   Curricula Vitae of the candidates had been 
circulated as Job documents to all delegations.  Subsequently, on 26 and 27 September 2011, the 
Selection Committee had conducted inte rviews with the four candidates.  Then, on 31 October, 1 and 
2 November 2011, the Committee had met individually with 43 delegations to hear their views on the 
candidates.  The Committee had also received the views of two delegations in writi ng.  To arrive at its 
final recommendation, the Selection Committee had carried out its work in accordance with the 
guidelines set out in the applicable DSU provisions and document WT/DSB/1 governing the selection 
and appointment of Appellate Body members.  The Selection Committee's task had been very 
challenging given the outstanding calib re and impressive qualif ications of the candidates.  On behalf 
of the Selection Committee and the entire WTO Membership, she thanked the candidates who had 
participated in the process and their respective Gove rnments for having nominated them.  As had been 
communicated by fax to all delegations on 7 November 2011, the Selection Committee had 
recommended that Mr. Ujal Singh Bhatia of Indi a and Mr. Thomas Graham of the United States be 
appointed as members of the Appellate Body for four years beginning on 11 December 2011.  She, 
therefore, proposed that the DSB take a decision to accept the Selection Committee's 
recommendation. 
3. The DSB so agreed.  
4. The Chairperson said that, on behalf of the Selection Committee and the entire WTO 
Membership, she once again thanked all the candi dates and their respective Governments, and 
congratulated Mr. Bhatia and Mr. Graham on their appointments. 
5. The representative of India said that his c ountry thanked Members for the appointment of 
Mr. Ujal Singh Bhatia as a member of the Appellate Body.  In particular, India thanked the Selection 
Committee for its recommendation, the Secretaria t for its assistance and WTO Members for their 
encouragement and support.  In addition, India wi shed to commend Pakistan for having nominated an 
extremely capable and well-qualified candidate to  the Appellate Body.  Pakistan's nomination 
provided Members with depth, variety and an alterna tive in the selection process.  India also wished 
to congratulate the United States on the appointment of Mr. Thomas Graham to serve on the Appellate Body.  The Appellate Body was the conscience keep er of the WTO.  It protected the rights of 
Members and reminded them of their obligations.  While expressing their faith in the two selected 
candidates, WTO Members had also put a tremen dous responsibility on them.  India was confident 
that with their calibre and capability, the two new members of the Appellate Body would fulfil their 
responsibility in an independent , impartial and objective manner and would live up to Members' 
expectations and faith.  India also wished to take this opportunity to put on record its appreciation for 
the contribution made to the Appellate Body by Ms . Bautista and Ms. Hillman.  Their sincerity, hard 
work and commitment helped to preserve a strong, fair and independent Appe llate Body and provided 
predictability and certainty to the dispute settlement  mechanism.  India wished them well in their 
future endeavours. 
6. The representative of the United States said that  his country thanked the Chairperson and the 
other members of the Selection Committee for thei r hard work and recommendation, which had aided 
the DSB in taking its decision at the present meetin g.  The United States also wished to thank all  WT/DSB/M/307 
 Page 3 
 
 
  candidates who had been willing to be put forward fo r this selection process, including, of course, the 
outstanding candidate from Pakistan.  The United Stat es wished thanks also to those delegations that 
had met with the nominees and had expressed their views to the Committee.  Finally, the United States said that it was grateful to the Secr etariat for its assistance during the process.  The 
United States wished to take the opportunity to co ngratulate the two new members of the Appellate 
Body that the DSB had just appointed and we lcomed, first of all, the appointment of 
Mr. Thomas Graham.  As Members were aware, Mr  Graham had a long and distinguished career in 
international trade, including early in his career  teaching about the GATT 1947 in Venezuela, being 
involved in multilateral trade negotiations, and practic ing trade law.  Mr. Graham would bring to the 
Appellate Body a broad range of experience and understanding that would serve the Appellate Body 
and Members well.  The United States also  welcomed the appointment of former 
Ambassador Ujal Bhatia to the Appellate Body, noting that of course all Members knew him well 
personally.  The United States was pleased to have had the opportunity to have met him during the 
selection process.  It was evident that his familia rity with the WTO and his impressive knowledge and 
experiences would contribute significantly to the wo rk of the Appellate Body.  The United States was 
aware that Members would continue to bring the Appellate Body many challenging issues and 
disputes and the United States was confident that the two new members would be invaluable in 
helping the Appellate Body carry out its work.  The United States said that it looked forward to 
working with both of them.  The United States said th at it also owed thanks to two departing members 
of the Appellate Body.  The United States then took  the opportunity to thank Ms. Jennifer Hillman for 
all of her tireless work in furtherance of the ma ny demands placed on the Appellate Body and in 
helping WTO Members resolve their disputes and very much expressed appreciation for all of her 
efforts on behalf of the Members and wished her well in the future.  Finally, the United States thanked 
Ms. Bautista for her four years of service on the Appellate Body.  The United States said that it very 
much appreciated the contributions that she had been able to make to the Appellate Body's work.  The 
United States extended its very best wishes to her.   
7. The representative of the European Union said that the EU thanked those Members who had 
participated in the nomination process for allowing a choice amongs t high-quality candidates.  The 
EU congratulated Messrs. Bhatia  and Graham on their appointme nt and thanked the Selection 
Committee for its work and its recommendation, which the EU endorsed.  The EU wished the 
successful candidates good luck in their challenging  tasks as members of the Appellate Body.  They 
were taking office at a particularly busy time for th e Appellate Body and their hard work would be 
required from the start.  While the candidates that ha d been under consideration this time were of the 
highest calibre, the EU had a systemic concern abou t how Members could, in the future, ensure that 
they had a choice amongst a sufficient number of candidates in order to maximize the chances of high-quality appointments.  As could be seen at  the present meeting, the process already produced 
very good results.  However, the EU looked forward to discussing with the Secretariat and interested 
Members how it could be further improved.    
8. The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of  Venezuela thanked the Selection Committee 
for its work during the selection process.  Although  the Permanent Representative of Venezuela had 
been absent from Geneva and had not been able to participate in the consultations carried out by the 
Selection Committee, Venezuela had followed the se lection process very closely.  Having examined 
the Selection Committee's conclusions and r ecommendation of 7 November 2011, Venezuela 
welcomed the appointment of Mr. Ujal Singh Bha tia, who had spent six years in Geneva as India's 
Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the WT O.  Venezuela warmly welcomed Mr. Bhatia 
and wished to assure him of its unlimited support a nd cooperation.  Mr. Bhatia was very proactive and 
had demonstrated a high level of knowledge and leadership.  He ha d contributed to the Doha Round 
negotiations and had helped to advance the interest s of developing-countries.  Venezuela was certain 
that Mr. Bhatia's appointment would improve de veloping-country representation in the Appellate 
Body and would ensure greater guarantees for de veloping-countries in disputes settled by the 
Appellate Body.  Venezuela was pleased that a developing-country representative had been WT/DSB/M/307 
Page 4  
 
  recommended for Appellate Body membership.  Ven ezuela would have also liked to have seen the 
appointment of Mr. Manzoor Ahmad (Pakistan) w ho was another worthy candidate nominated by a 
developing country.  Mr. Ahmad had an excellent pr ofile for participating in the Appellate Body and 
Venezuela regretted that he had not been recomme nded.  Venezuela hoped that more candidates from 
developing countries would be considered in the fu ture so as to continue strengthening the presence of 
developing countries in the various WTO bodies.  This would help to reduce asymmetries in the 
international economic system.  Venezuela believed that the composition of the Appellate Body, as 
well as of the other WTO bodies, must be more balanced.  The current situation did not represent the reality of WTO Membership and there was need for greater developing-country representation. 
9. The representative of Brazil said that his country  congratulated Messrs. Ujal Singh Bhatia and 
Thomas Graham on their appointment as members of the Appellate Body, in a process that had further 
contributed to the legitimacy and representativeness of the Appellate  Body.  Brazil wished the new 
Appellate Body members success in addressing the di fficult task ahead of them and was certain of 
their commitment to the independence of the Appella te Body and confident in their technical skills. 
10. The representative of China said that his country thanked the Selection Committee for its 
efforts devoted to the selection pr ocess.  China welcomed and congratulated the two new members of 
the Appellate Body.  The impartiality and independe nce of Appellate Body members were essential to 
the credibility and effective functioning of the WT O dispute settlement system.  As an increasingly 
substantial participant in the dispute settlement mechanism, China hoped and was confident that the 
newly appointed Appellate Body members would ab ide by the principles and rules established under 
the DSU, the Rules of Conduct and the Working Pr ocedures for Appellate Review, and that they 
would perform their duties faithfully, independen tly and impartially.  China attached utmost 
importance to the smooth functioning of the Appellate  Body, and would continue to work with the 
Appellate Body.  China thanked the outgoing Appe llate Body members, Ms. Lilia Bautista and 
Ms. Jennifer Hillman, for their remarkable and pe rsevering services and for their contribution over the 
past years, and wished them well in their future endeavours.  
11. The representative of Cuba said that his country  thanked the Selection Committee for its work 
given the high-calibre of the four candidates.  Cuba particularly welcomed the appointment of 
Mr. Bhatia given his qualifications and the role that  India played in the multilateral trading system.  
However, Cuba was concerned that one particular  country continued to be represented in the 
Appellate Body.  While Cuba did not question the qu alifications of that country's candidate, it was 
concerned that the country in question was in viol ation of WTO rules and did not comply with the 
DSB's rulings.  Cuba would have preferred the appointment of Pakistan's candidate, along with 
Mr. Bhatia.  This would have led to a better represe ntation of developing countries in the Appellate 
Body.  That being said, Cuba supported the reco mmendation of the Selection Committee, which was 
based on merits.     
12. The representative of Singapore said that her country thanked the Selection Committee and 
the Secretariat for their work to wards the selection process.  Singapore considered that the multilateral 
trading system was important and that the dispute settlement mechanism was cen tral to this system.  
The WTO dispute settlement system had been used  by Members to resolve disputes, and it had 
resolved many of the disputes within the 15-year pe riod of its establishment, arguably more than any 
other international dispute settlement system.  This  was testimony of Members' reliance on the system 
which, with its two-tier dispute settlement mechanis m with the Appellate Body at its apex, was unique 
in international law.  The Appellate Body played  a fundamental role as the standing body to hear 
appeals from panel cases.  As the number of disputes increased and as disputes became more complex, it was imperative to have well-qualified wo men and men to serve on the Appellate Body.  It 
was important for the Appellate Body to be sou nd, objective, and to act on the basis of legal 
principles, given its role as the credible arb iter between Members in disputes.  Singapore had 
participated in the selection process and had gi ven its views to the Selection Committee on the  WT/DSB/M/307 
 Page 5 
 
 
  strengths of each of the four candidates and how each of them could contribute to the system.  
Singapore thanked Ms. Bautista and Ms. Hillman for their contributions and congratulated 
Messrs. Thomas Graham and Ujal Singh Bhatia.  Si ngapore wished them well and looked forward to 
their contribution to the system. 
13. The representative of Australia said that her country thanked all three WTO Members:  
Pakistan, India and the United States, for having no minated high- calibre candidates for membership 
of the Appellate Body.  Australia thanked the Secr etariat and the Selection Committee for their hard 
work in conducting the selection process, hearing th e views of delegations and bringing the process to 
a successful conclusion.  Australia welcomed and congratulated the two new members of the 
Appellate Body who had just been appointed, Mr . Singh Bhatia of India and Mr. Thomas Graham of 
the United States.  Australia was confident that th ey would carry out their duties as Appellate Body 
members faithfully and impartially, so as to repr esent the interests of all Members in ensuring the 
proper functioning of the rules-based multilatera l trading system.  Australia acknowledged and 
expressed its appreciation to the two outgoing memb ers of the Appellate Body, Ms. Bautista and 
Ms. Hillman, for their dedication and hard work which had greatly contributed to the Appellate 
Body's work.  
14. The DSB took note of the statements.   
2. Surveillance of implementation of recommendations adopted by the DSB 
(a) United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appr opriations Act of 1998:  Status report by 
the United States (WT/DS176/11/Add.108) 
 
(b) United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan:  
Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.108) 
 (c) United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act:  Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/Add.83) 
 
(d) European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of  biotech products:  
Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.46) 
 (e) United States – Measures relating to zeroing and sunset reviews:  Status report by 
the United States (WT/DS322/36/Add.26) 
 
(f) United States – Continued existence and appli cation of zeroing methodology:  Status report 
by the United States (WT/DS350/18/Add.23) 
 (g) United States – Laws, regulations a nd methodology for calculating dumping margins 
("zeroing"):  Status report by the United States (WT/DS294/38/Add.17) 
 (h) China – Measures affecting trading rights and distribution services for certain publications 
and audiovisual entertainment products:  Status report by China (WT/DS363/17/Add.10) 
  
15. The Chairperson recalled that Article 21.6 of the DSU required that unless the DSB decided 
otherwise, the issue of implementation of the re commendations or rulings shall be placed on the 
Agenda of the DSB meeting after six months follo wing the date of establis hment of the reasonable 
period of time and shall remain on the DSB's Agenda  until the issue was resolv ed.  She proposed that 
the eight sub-items under Agenda item 2 be considered separately.  WT/DSB/M/307 
Page 6  
 
  (a) United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropr iations Act of 1998:  Status report by 
the United States (WT/DS176/11/Add.108) 
16. The Chairperson drew attention to documen t WT/DS176/11/Add.108, which contained the 
status report by the United States on progress in th e implementation of the DSB's recommendations in 
the case concerning US Section 211 Om nibus Appropriations Act of 1998. 
17. The representative of the United States said that  his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 7 November 2011, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  Legislative proposals 
had been introduced in the current 112th Congr ess that would implement the recommendations and 
rulings of the DSB.  The US Administration would continue to work on solutions to implement the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings.  
18. The representative of the European Union said that the EU thanked the United States for its 
status report and hoped that the US authorities woul d very soon take steps towards implementing the 
DSB's ruling and resolve this matter. 
19. The representative of Cuba said that it had been  almost ten years since the adoption of the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings pertaining to the Section 211dispute, but the United States 
continued to fail to comply with those rulings.  Th e most recent US status report did not mention any 
measures that the US Administration was obliged to ta ke in order to solve this dispute.  Cuba had 
systematically denounced this non-compliance and had explained the motives that had led to the 
imposition of Section 211.  One of the most importa nt reasons was to promote the interests of the 
Bacardi Company by depriving the right holders of the Havana Club trademark of their rights in the 
US territory.  All this was linked to the US po licy and blockade against Cuba.  Once again, the 
international community had overwhelmingly rejected  the implementation of that blockade at the 
Sixty-Sixth Session of the UN General Assembly.  With 186 votes in favour, the principal and most universal organ of the United Nations had adopted  Resolution 65/6, entitled: "Necessity of Ending the 
Economic, Commercial and Financia l Blockade imposed by the United States of America against 
Cuba".  Similarly, the Heads of State and Govern ment of the Ibero-American countries, meeting in 
Asuncion, Paraguay, on the occasion of the 21
st Ibero-American Summit, had reaffirmed, once again, 
their "emphatic rejection of the implementation of laws and measures contrary to international law, 
such as the Helms Burton Act, and urged the government  of the United States to end its application".  
Accordingly, they had also requested the United St ates to "comply with the provisions contained in 
20 consecutive resolutions approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations and to end the 
economic, commercial and financial blockade that it maintains against Cuba".  However, the 
United States continued to ignore the requests from the international community.  The violations of 
international law by the world's leading economy we re numerous and affected other Members, not 
only Cuba.  Cuba noted that the Agenda of the pr esent meeting demonstrated that the United States 
continued to fail to comply with the DSB's rulings in many long-standing disputes.  Cuba, once again, 
called on the United States to repeal Section 211, wh ich had been found, almost a decade ago, to be 
incompatible with the WTO's fundamental rules and principles.  The continued application of 
Section 211 violated the TRIPS Agreement, the DSB' s rulings and the rules of the multilateral trading 
system.  After 50 years of applying the blockade ag ainst Cuba, the United States should have realized 
that its policy had not worked and would not work.  The United States had only one option:  i.e. to end that hostile, illegal and inhuman policy. 
20. The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela noted that, once again, the 
Section 211 dispute concerning Havana Club rum was on the DSB's Agenda.  Venezuela also noted 
that there was no change in the content of the US status report submitted before the DSB at the 
present meeting.  In Venezuela's view, this coul d be described as "action without results".  The 
United States continued to apply its law that was c ontrary to the TRIPS Agreement, incompatible with 
the principles of national and most-favoured-nati on treatment and undermined the dispute settlement  WT/DSB/M/307 
 Page 7 
 
 
  mechanism, which was one of the main achie vements of the Uruguay Round.  Venezuela had 
observed for almost ten years the US reluctance to comply with the Appellate Body's ruling.  
Moreover, recently, the international community ha d overwhelmingly rejected the blockade imposed 
on Cuba at the Sixty-Sixth Session of the UN General Assembly of the United Nations, by adopting Resolution 65/6 entitled:  "Necessity of Ending the Economic, Commercial an d Financial Blockade 
Imposed by the United States of America against Cuba", with 186 votes in favour.  However, the 
United States did not show any sign of compliance.  In conclusion, Venezuela called upon the United States, as it had done on many occasions, to end this policy of economic, commercial and 
financial embargo against Cuba and to respect its  commitment towards the Dispute Settlement Body 
by complying with the DSB's recommendations. 
21. The representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia said that his country had, once again, 
noted that the US status report, which was similar to  the previous reports, demonstrated the US failure 
to comply with the DSB's recommendations and ru lings.  Bolivia, once again, expressed its concern 
about the lack of progress in this dispute.  Su ch non-compliance undermined the credibility of the 
multilateral trading system, caused serious harm to a developing country and raised systemic 
concerns.  Bolivia urged the United States to comp ly with the DSB's recommendations and rulings 
and to take steps to remove the restrictions imposed under Section 211.  Bolivia commended on the 
adoption of Resolution 65/6 in the UN General Assemb ly.  This was a step towards putting an end to 
the US embargo imposed on Cuba.  Bolivia urged othe rs to take similar acti ons and supported Cuba's 
statement. 
22. The representative of the Dominican Republic said that her country thanked the United States 
for its status report regarding its progress in th e implementation of the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings to the effect that Section 211 was inconsiste nt with Article 42 of the TRIPS Agreement.  In 
that regard, the Dominican Republic, once again,  urged the United States to expedite domestic 
measures to enable them to finally comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  The lack of 
compliance over a long period of time undermined the credibility of the DSB. 
23. The representative of Nicaragua said that his count ry thanked the United States for its status 
report regarding the implementation of the DSB's de cision and the Appellate Body's findings made in 
2002 with regard to Section 211 and its inconsistency with the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement.  
Nicaragua had faith in the effective operation of  the dispute settlement system and attached 
importance to the credibility of the system.  Howeve r, Nicaragua regretted that the US report did not 
reflect any substantive progress and, once again, conf irmed the continued failure by the United States 
to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulin gs.  This undermined the credibility of the DSB 
and the multilateral trading system.  Nicaragua  supported Cuba's statement and called on the 
United States to comply with the DSB's rulings by removing the restrictions imposed under Section 211 and, more broadly, by lifting the ec onomic, commercial and fina ncial embargo that had 
been imposed on Cuba for the past 50 years. 
24. The representative of China said that his country thanked the United States for its status report 
and its statement made at the present meeting.  Chin a regretted that the United States had, once again, 
reported non-compliance.  This prolonged situati on of non-compliance was highly incompatible with 
the prompt and effective implementation as required under the DSU, in particular since the interests 
of a developing-country Member were affected.  China, therefore, urged the United States to implement the DSB's rulings and recomme ndations without any further delay. 
25. The representative of Zimbabwe said that his coun try thanked the United States for its status 
report and noted the US willingness to continue to  work on a solution to resolve this matter.  
Zimbabwe wished to be associated with the statem ents made by the previous speakers in support of 
Cuba and called on the United States to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings by 
bringing the inconsistent measure into conformity  with its obligations under the TRIPS Agreement. WT/DSB/M/307 
Page 8  
 
  26. The representative of Brazil said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report pertaining to this dispute.  Once again, th e United States reported lack of progress.  Brazil 
remained concerned about the situation of n on-compliance with the DSB's recommendations and 
urged the United States to bring its measures into conformity with WTO rules. 
27. The representative of Chile said that, in the c ontext of the discussion under this Agenda item, 
his country wished to make a systemic point.  In this  regard, Chile wished to stress that the failure to 
comply with the DSB's rulings and recommendations undermined the credibility of the dispute settlement system.  
28. The representative of Mexico said that his count ry thanked the United States for its status 
report, which reported non-compliance.  Mexico urge d the parties to resolve this dispute through one 
of the legal remedies provided under the DSU provisions.  Mexico noted that any Member could 
initiate its own dispute if it considered that its righ ts were being impaired or nullified.  Mexico also 
noted that the discussion under this Agenda item could provide useful input for the ongoing discussions carried out in the context of the DSU negotia tions, in particular with regard to the issue of 
effective compliance.  
29. The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(b) United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan:  
Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.108) 
30. The Chairperson drew attention to documen t WT/DS184/15/Add.108, which contained the 
status report by the United States on progress in th e implementation of the DSB's recommendations in 
the case concerning US anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan. 
31. The representative of the United States said that  his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 7 November 2011, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  As of 
November 2002, the US authorities had addressed the DSB's recommendations and rulings with 
respect to the calculation of anti-dumping margin s in the hot-rolled steel anti-dumping duty 
investigation at issue in this dispute.  With r espect to the recommendations and rulings of the DSB 
that had not already been addressed by the US auth orities, the US Administration would work with 
the US Congress with respect to appropriate statut ory measures that would resolve this matter.  
32. The representative of Japan said that his country  thanked the United States for its statement 
and its most recent status report.  Japan noted th at the United States had taken certain measures to 
implement part of the DSB's recommendations  in November 2002.  Japan hoped that the 
United States would soon be in a position to report to the DSB on more tangible progress with respect 
to the implementation of the remaining part of the DSB's recommendations.  Full and prompt 
implementation of the DSB's recommendations and ru lings was "essential to the effective functioning 
of the WTO and the maintenance or a proper bala nce of the rights and obligations of Members".1  
Japan called on the United States to fully implement the DSB's recommendations in this long-standing 
dispute without further delay.  
33. The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
                                                      
1 Article 3.3 of the DSU.  WT/DSB/M/307 
 Page 9 
 
 
  (c) United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act:  Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/Add.83) 
34. The Chairperson drew attention to documen t WT/DS160/24/Add.83, which contained the 
status report by the United States on progress in th e implementation of the DSB's recommendations in 
the case concerning Section 110(5)  of the US Copyright Act. 
35. The representative of the United States said that  his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 7 November 2011, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  The US 
Administration would continue to confer with the EU, and to work closely with the US Congress, in order to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution of this matter.  
36. The representative of the European Union said th at the EU had taken note of, and thanked the 
United States for its status report.  The EU remain ed keen to move quickly  in resolving this case. 
37. The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(d) European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products:  
Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.46) 
38. The Chairperson drew attention to documen t WT/DS291/37/Add.46, which contained the 
status report by the European Union on progress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case concerning its measures a ffecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products. 
39. The representative of the European Union said that, as mentioned at the 25 October 2011 
DSB meeting, EU and US officials had held anot her technical meeting on biotechnology issues on 
27 September 2011.  The continued dialogue gave both the EU and the United States an opportunity 
to discuss directly issues of their concern rega rding biotechnology.  The EU hoped that this 
constructive approach based on dialogue would allow the parties to leave litigation aside.  Once again, 
the EU noted that its regulatory procedures on biotech  products continued to work as foreseen in the 
legislation.  The number of GMOs authorized since the date of establishment of the Panel was 
thirty four.  In 2010, 11 applications had been authorized, more than double the number of 
authorizations in 2009, including one authorizati on for cultivation.  On 17  June 2011, the Commission 
had adopted two more authorization decisions2, together with the decision on the renewal of the 
authorization of maize 1507.  Progress had also been made on other applications for authorization.  
Four more draft applications had been voted  in the Standing Committee in February 20113 and had 
been transmitted to the Council, which would examin e those applications in the coming weeks.  Two 
draft decisions on GM soybeans had been voted at the Standing Committee on the food chain and 
animal health (SCFCAH) meeting on 14 November 2011.4  Two more authorizations on GM soybean 
would be possibly voted at the Standing Committee on 12 December 2011.5  Since September 2011, 
EFSA had adopted a scientific opinion for food and feed authorization6 and one opinion for 
cultivation.7 
                                                      
2 Maize MON89034xMON88017 and cotton GHB614. 
3 MIR604×GA21 maize, BT11×MIR604 maize, Bt11×MIR604×GA21 maize, 281-24-236/3006-210-
23 cotton. 
4 A5547-127, and the renewal on 40-3-2. 
5 MON 87701 and 356043. 
6 Renewal of MON531; MON89034x1507xNK603 maize;  MON89034x1507xMON88017x59122 
maize. 
7 MON88017 maize. WT/DSB/M/307 
Page 10  
 
  40. The representative of the United States said that  his country thanked the EU for its status 
report and its statement made at the present meeting.  At the July meeting of the DSB, the 
United States had recalled the DSB rulings that biotech product bans adopted by six EU member 
States breached the EU's obligations under the SPS Agreement because the m easures were not based 
on risk assessments.8  The United States had further recalled that elements of the member State bans 
subject to the DSB's recommendations and rulings re mained in place.  Moreover, the biotech product 
bans had spread to additional EU member States, including France, Germany, and Hungary.  At the 
present meeting, the United States wished to express  particular concern with  a broad biotech product 
ban that had been adopted by Hungary, Hungary ha d currently banned the cultivation of all biotech 
products.  The ban extended to products that the EU 's scientific authority had found to be safe, and 
that the EU had approved for use.  The ban likewis e extended to biotech maize varieties specifically 
covered by the DSB's recommendations and rulings in th is dispute.  The ban that had been adopted by 
Hungary had substantial trade impacts, especially in light of the fact that Hungary was a major 
producer of maize.  Furthermore, the economic impact extended beyond biotech maize to sales and 
planting of non-biotech maize.  That past spring, Hungarian officials had ordered the destruction of 
several thousand hectares of non-biotech maize, on the apparent basis that trace levels of biotech 
maize had been detected.  That action had been take n despite the fact that biotech maize had a proven 
safety record, had passed rigorous safety assessments by  the EU's scientific committees, and had been 
approved at the EU-level.  The action had resulted in substantial economic losses to seed producers, 
as well as Hungary's own farmers.  The United Stat es urged the EU to take steps to address bans, 
adopted by Hungary and other EU member States, on  biotech products that had been approved at the 
EU level.   
41. The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(e) United States – Measures relating to zeroing and sunset reviews:  Status report by 
the United States (WT/DS322/36/Add.26) 
42. The Chairperson drew attention to documen t WT/DS322/36/Add.26, which contained the 
status report by the United States on progress in th e implementation of the DSB's recommendations in 
the case concerning US measures relating to zeroing and sunset reviews. 
43. The representative of the United States said that  his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 7 November 2011, in accordance with  Article 21.6 of the DSU.  In December 2010, 
the Arbitrator in the proceeding under Article 22.6 of the DSU in this dispute had issued a 
communication stating that it had accepted a joint request  by the parties to the dispute to suspend its 
work.  On 7 November 2011, in response to a jo int request by the United States and Japan, the 
Arbitrator had issued a communication stating that it  had decided to continue further the suspension.  
The communication of the Arbitrator had been circ ulated to the DSB in document WT/DS322/40.  As 
the United States had explained in its status re port, in December 2010 the US Department of 
Commerce had announced a proposal to change the calculation of weighted average dumping margins 
and assessment rates in certain anti-dumping proceedi ngs.  At the present time, the US Department of 
Commerce was continuing with its ongoing work on the December proposal.  
44. The representative of Japan said that his country  thanked the United States for its statement 
and its most recent status report.  Japan took note of the report that "the United States is continuing its 
ongoing work on the proposal" by the US Department  of Commerce.  As had been stated in the 
previous DSB meetings, Japan took the US impl ementation efforts as a positive step forward.  
However, Japan continued to seek prompt and full co mpliance by the United States with respect to all 
                                                      
8 "European Communities – Measurers Affecting the A pproval and Marketing of Biotech Products", 
WT/DS291/R (adopted 21 November 2006), paras. 8.21 to 8.30.    WT/DSB/M/307 
 Page 11 
 
 
  of the measures at issue that were subject to the recommendations in this dispute.  As the 
United States had stated, upon request by the parties, the Article 22.6 Arbitrator "has decided to continue the suspension of its work"
9 until 30 November 2011.  Japan  called on the United States to 
fully comply by then.  Japan looked forward to a continued di alogue with the United States and would 
closely monitor any developments on this matter.  Japan reserved its right under the DSU to take 
appropriate action, if necessary. 
45. The representative of China said that his country thanked the United States for its status report 
and its statement made at the present meeting.  Ch ina welcomed the steps taken by the United States 
towards the implementation of the DSB's rulings and recommendations on zeroi ng matters.  However, 
China remained very concerned as to how the Un ited States would implement the DSB's decision on 
zeroing matters.  China would follow the US implementation steps and urged the United States to take 
action to fully comply with the DSB's recomme ndations and rulings without further delay. 
46. The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(f) United States – Continued existence and appli cation of zeroing methodology:  Status report 
by the United States (WT/DS350/18/Add.23) 
47. The Chairperson drew attention to documen t WT/DS350/18/Add.23, which contained the 
status report by the United States on progress in th e implementation of the DSB's recommendations in 
the case concerning the existence and application of zeroing methodology by the United States.   
48. The representative of the United States said th at his country had addressed the issue of 
compliance with the findings in this dispute in the status report provided on 7 November 2011, and 
earlier in the present meeting's discussion of Agenda item 1(e).  The United States referred Members 
to that report and statement for further details.  
49. The representative of the European Union said that the EU thanked the United States for its 
most recent status report.  Since the United Stat es had not reported on any steps taken to address the 
concerns raised by the EU in the DSB, the EU re ferred Members to its statements made at the DSB 
meetings in January and February 2011.  The EU re mained ready to engage with the United States in 
discussions in the WTO and bilaterally in order to ensure that its concerns were addressed by the 
United States.  The EU looked forward to further information from the United States on its intentions. 
50. The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(g) United States – Laws, regul ations and methodology for calculating dumping margins 
("zeroing"):  Status report by the United States (WT/DS294/38/Add.17) 
51. The Chairperson drew attention to documen t WT/DS294/38/Add.17, which contained the 
status report by the United States on progress in th e implementation of the DSB's recommendations in 
the case concerning US laws, regulations and me thodology for calculating dumping margins. 
52. The representative of the United States said th at his country had addressed the issue of 
compliance with the findings in this dispute in the status report provided on 7 November 2011, and 
earlier in the discussion under Agenda item 1(e).  Th e United States referred Members to that report 
and statement for further details.   
                                                      
9 WT/DS322/40. WT/DSB/M/307 
Page 12  
 
  53. The representative of the European Union said that the EU thanked the United States for its 
status report and referred Members to its statem ents made under Agenda item 1(f) of the present 
meeting. 
54. The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(h) China – Measures affecting trading rights and distribution services for certain publications 
and audiovisual entertainment products:  Status report by China (WT/DS363/17/Add.10) 
55. The Chairperson drew attention to documen t WT/DS363/17/Add.10, which contained the 
status report by China on progress in the implemen tation of the DSB's recommendations in the case 
concerning China's measures affecting trading rights and distribution services for certain publications 
and audiovisual entertainment products. 
56. The representative of China said that his country had provided a status report in this dispute 
on 7 November 2011, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  China had made tremendous 
efforts to implement the DSB's rulings and re commendations and had, thus far, completed 
amendments to most measures at issue.  China be lieved that this matter would be properly resolved 
through joint efforts and mutual cooperation by relevant parties. 
57. The representative of the United States said that his country thanked China for its status report 
and its statement made at the present meeting.  As it had previously noted, the United States remained 
concerned by the lack of progress by China in br inging its measures relating to films for theatrical 
release into compliance with the DSB's recommenda tions and rulings.  The United States also had 
significant concerns about the incomplete progress re lative to China's measures relating to audiovisual 
home entertainment products, reading materials,  and sound recordings.  The United States was 
conferring with China on these matters.  The United  States hoped that China would take steps to 
resolve this matter soon.    
58. The DSB took note of the statements and agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
3. United States – Continued Dumping and Subsid y Offset Act of 2000:  Implementation of 
the recommendations adopted by the DSB 
(a) Statements by the European Union and Japan 
59. The Chairperson said that this item was on the Agen da of the present meeting at the request of 
the European Union and Japan.  She then invited the respective representatives to speak. 
60. The representative of the European Union said that the EU had alr eady informed the DSB 
about the annual adjustment in the level of duties applied by the EU in this case in a document 
circulated on 12 April 2011.  At the present meeting, and as it had done many times before, the EU wished to ask the United States when it would eff ectively stop the  transfer of anti-dumping and 
countervailing duties to the US industry and, hence, put an end to the condemned measure.  The fact 
that the United States had stopped disbursing duties collected after a certain point in time did not 
achieve full compliance.  Every disbursement that still took place was clearly an act of non-
compliance with the DSB's recommendations.  The EU  renewed its call on the United States to abide 
by its clear obligation under Article 21.6 of the DSU and to submit status reports on implementation 
in this dispute.  WT/DSB/M/307 
 Page 13 
 
 
  61. The representative of Japan said that FY 2011 distributions appeared to be well underway10 
and, thus, the CDSOA remained operational.  As the US Customs and Border Protection had 
explained, "the distribution process will continue for an undetermined period".11  Japan urged the 
United States to stop the illegal distributions and rep eal the CDSOA, not just in form but in substance, 
so as to resolve this dispute.  According to Article 21.6 of the DSU, the United States was under 
obligation to provide the DSB with a status report pertaining to this dispute. 
62. The representative of India said that his country  thanked Japan and the EU for bringing this 
item before the DSB.  India had mentioned in the past  and wished to repeat at the present meeting that 
the CDSOA remained fully opera tional, affecting the rights of WTO Members and undermining the 
credibility of the dispute settlement mechanism.  India requested that the United States report full 
compliance without any further delay. 
63. The representative of Brazil said that his country  thanked the EU and Japan for keeping this 
item on the DSB's Agenda.  As it had expressed in previous meetings, Brazil was of the view that the 
United States was under an obligation to submit stat us reports pertaining to this dispute until such 
time as no more disbursements were  made pursuant to the Byrd Amendment.  Only then the issue 
would be "resolved" within the meaning of the DS U and the United States would be released from its 
obligation to provide status repor ts pertaining to this dispute. 
64. The representative of Canada said that his count ry thanked the EU and Japan for keeping this 
item on the DSB's Agenda.  Canada agreed with  the EU and Japan that the Byrd Amendment 
remained subject to the surveilla nce of the DSB until the United St ates ceased to administer it. 
65. The representative of Thailand said that his count ry thanked the EU and Japan for continuing 
to bring this item before the DSB.  Thailand supp orted the statements made by previous speakers and 
continued to urge the United States to cease the di sbursements and fully implement the DSB's rulings 
and recommendations on this matter. 
66. The representative of the United States said that, as his country had explained at previous 
DSB meetings, the President had signed the Deficit Reduction Act into law on 8 February 2006.  That 
Act included a provision repealing the Continued Du mping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000.  Thus, 
the United States had taken all actions necessary to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in these disputes.  The United States reca lled, furthermore, that Members had acknowledged 
during previous DSB meetings that the 2006 Defic it Reduction Act did not permit the distribution of 
duties collected on goods entered after 1 October 2007.  With respect to comments regarding further 
status reports, the United States failed to see what  purpose would be served by further submission of 
status reports repeating the progress the United States had made in implementing the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in these disputes.  
67. The DSB took note of the statements. 
__________  
                                                      
10 See US Customs and Border Protection's website at: 
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/prior ity_trade/add_cvd/cont_dump/cdsoa_11/ 
11 See US Customs and Border Protection's website at: 
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trad e/priority_trade/add_cvd/cont_dump/cont_dump_faq.xml