RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DSB/M/282 
18 June 2010 
 (10-3344) 
Dispute Settlement Body 
20 April 2010  
 
 
   
MINUTES OF MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard
 
on 20 April 2010  
 
Chairman:  Mr. Yonov Frederick Agah (Nigeria) 
  
Subjects discussed
: Page  
 
1. Surveillance of implementation of recommendations adopted by the DSB.........................2  
(a) United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropr iations Act of 1998:  Status report by 
the United States .............................................................................................................. ...........3  
(b) United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from 
Japan:  Status report by  the United States...................................................................................6  
(c) United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act:  Status report by 
the United States .............................................................................................................. ...........6  
(d) European Communities1 – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products:  Status  report by the European Union ........................................................................7  
(e) United States – Measures relating to zeroing and sunset reviews:  Status report by 
the United States .............................................................................................................. ...........7  
(f) United States – Continued existence and a pplication of zeroing methodology:  Status 
report by the United States.................................................................................................... ......8  
(g) Colombia – Indicative prices and restrictions  on ports of entry:  Status report by 
Colombia....................................................................................................................... ..............9  
2. United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000:  
Implementation of the recommenda tions adopted by the DSB ..........................................10  
(a) Statements by the European Union and Japan ..........................................................................10  
3. European Communities1 – Export subsidies on sugar.........................................................11  
(a) Statements by Australia, Brazil and Thailand...........................................................................11  
                                                      
1 On 1 December 2009, the Treaty of Lisbon amendi ng the Treaty on Europe an Union and the Treaty 
establishing the European Community (done at Lisb on, 13 December 2007) en tered into force.  On 
29 November 2009, the WTO received a verbal note (WT /L/779) from the Council of the European Union and 
the Commission of the European Communities stating that, by virtue of the Treaty of Lisbon, as of 
1 December 2009, the European Union replaces and succeeds the European Community. WT/DSB/M/282 
Page 2  
 
  4.
 Philippines – Taxes on distilled spirits ..................................................................................12  
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by the United States .................................................12  
5. United States – Use of zeroing in an ti-dumping measures involving products 
from Korea ..................................................................................................................... .........13  
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by Korea...................................................................13  
6. United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain shrimp from Viet Nam.....................14  
(a) Request for the establishment of  a panel by Viet Nam.............................................................14  
7. European Union – Anti-dumping measures on certain footwear from China ..................15  
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by China...................................................................15  
8. China – Measures affecting the protection and enforcement of intellectual 
property rights ................................................................................................................ ........16  
(a) Statement by China............................................................................................................. ......16  
(b) Statement by the United States ................................................................................................. 16 
 
 
1. 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.89) 
 (b) United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan:  
Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.89) 
 
(c) United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act:  Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/Add.64) 
 (d) European Communities – Measures affecting th e approval and marketing of biotech products:  
Status  report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.27) 
 (e) United States – Measures relating to zeroi ng and sunset reviews:  Status report by 
the United States (WT/DS322/36/Add.7) 
 (f) United States – Continued existence and app lication of zeroing methodology:  Status report 
by the United States (WT/DS350/18/Add.4) 
 (g) Colombia – Indicative prices and restrictions on ports of entry:  Status report by Colombia 
(WT/DS366/15) 
 
 
1. The Chairman
 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 issu e was resolved.    WT/DSB/M/282 
 Page 3 
 
 
  (a) United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropr iations Act of 1998:  Status report by 
the United States (WT/DS176/11/Add.89) 
2. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS176/ 11/Add.89, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the impl ementation of the DSB's recommendations in the 
case concerning US Section 211 Omni bus Appropriations Act of 1998. 
3. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 8 April 2010, in accordance with Ar ticle 21.6 of the DSU.  As had been noted, a 
number of legislative proposals that would implem ent the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this 
dispute had been introduced in the First Session of the current (111th) Congress.  The Second Session of the 111th Congress had begun in January 2010.  The US administration was working with the US 
Congress to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings. 
4. The representative of the European Union
 said that, at the present meeting, the United States 
was presenting its ninetieth status report in this di spute.  The EU hoped that the new US authorities 
would now take steps to finally implement the DSB's ruling and resolve this matter. 
5. The representative of Cuba  said that his country had repeatedly asked the United States to 
provide information on the steps it was taking to comply with the DSB's rulings, which had been 
made more than eight years ago, and yet the United States continued to submit empty status reports.  
The United States should be reminded that status reports must refer to the progress made in the 
implementation of the DSB's recommendations or rulings, as stipulated in Article 21.6 of the DSU.  Cuba was very much aware of the lack of progress in  this dispute.  At the March 2010 DSB meeting,  
the United States had vaguely referred to a hearing held on 3 March 2010.  At the present meeting, 
Cuba wished to comment on that hearing, wher e an intensive discussion had taken place between 
those in favour of fully repealing Section 211 a nd those who believed that only minor amendments 
were required to bring it into line with WTO rul es.  Thus, the discussion on the position favouring the 
mere amendment of Section 211 had ta ken up most of the time at the hearing.  Nonetheless, those in 
favour of fully repealing Section 211 had raised a number of points that the US administration should 
consider very seriously.  For instance, the need for the United States to respect international rules, the 
US crucial role towards the enforcement of intellect ual property rights at the global level, and the fact 
that in Cuba the registration of US tr ademarks had, to date, been respected. 
6. Cuba wished to reiterate that the only acceptabl e solution was to repeal Section 211, and that 
Section 211 could not be amended.   In Cuba's view, the US administration should fully assess the 
consequences of maintaining Section 211 in e ffect.  At the same time, Cuba reminded the 
United States that each Member was responsible for ensuring the conformity of its laws, regulations 
and administrative procedures with its WTO obliga tions, as stipulated in Article XVI:4 of the 
Marrakesh Agreement.  The United States could no lo nger continue to delay this decision.  The US 
conduct would seem entirely consistent with the trad e policy of the United States, a powerful country 
that placed so much importance to its intangible asset s.  The respondent and the complainant in this 
dispute were, through their inertia and lack of po litical will, favouring disrespect and anarchy in the 
area of intellectual property rights  and were sending the world a very  dangerous signal.  In Cuba's 
view, no Member should feel bound by the TRIPS Ag reement until the EU and the United States took 
steps to ensure the definitive repeal of Section 211.  Both Members had taken the wrong direction.  
Cuba was aware of the substantial trade interests i nvolved, which had been very clear ever since this 
legislation was enacted.  While Cuba had been imme rsed in costly and unsuccessful proceedings to 
defend legitimately registered trademarks, the Bacardi company was selling products under the 
HAVANA CLUB trademark in the very country wher e private rights were supposedly respected and 
where such respect was enforced under the Constitution.  This  conduct was undoubtedly very serious, 
and the time had come to make a decision.  Cuba, once again, called on the parties to take immediate 
action and to put every effort into ensuring the full repeal of Section 211. WT/DSB/M/282 
Page 4  
 
  7. The representative of China
 said that her country thanked the United States for its status 
report and its statement.  However, since the re port confirmed the continuation of non-compliance, 
after more than eight years since the adoption by th e DSB of the Reports pertaining to this dispute,  
China, once again, wished to express concerns be cause such a situation was not in line with the 
principle of prompt implementation set out in the DSU, and undermined the authority and creditability 
of WTO dispute settlement system.  China full y supported Cuba and urged the United States to 
implement the DSB's decision as soon as possible. 
8. The representative of Ecuador  said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report.  Ecuador supported Cuba's statement and, once again, emphasized that Article 21 of the DSU 
referred expressly to prompt compliance with the DS B's recommendations and rulings, in particular 
with respect to matters affecting the interests of  developing country Members.  The United States 
closely monitored Members' compliance with th eir WTO obligations and had, in various WTO 
Councils and Committees, expressed its trade and systemic concerns about certain commitments undertaken by other Members.  The United States al so drew up internal reports on countries' alleged 
non-compliance with their obligations regarding in tellectual property rights.  Ecuador, therefore, 
hoped that the United States would set a good example and, once again, urged the US administration 
and Congress to continue their efforts to ensure prompt compliance with the DSB's recommendations 
and rulings by repealing Section 211 .  Finally, Ecuador wished to receive more detailed information 
from the EU on the steps taken to resolve this dispute. 
9. The representative of Bolivia
 said that her country wished, once again, to reiterate its concern 
at the US failure to comply, the lack of progress and the consequences thereof for the operation of the 
DSB.  The United States should comply with th e DSB's recommendations and rulings and remove 
Section 211, which was contrary to the rules of in ternational law and undermined the effectiveness of 
the WTO system.  Bolivia supported the statement made by Cuba. 
10. The representative of India  said that her country thanked the United States for its status report 
and its statement.  However, India noted that there was no substantive change in the situation and that, 
unfortunately, the US status report only confirme d the continuation of non-compliance.  India felt 
compelled, yet again, to stress that the principle of prompt compliance was missing in this dispute.  India was concerned that non-compliance undermined  the credibility and confidence that Members 
reposed in the WTO dispute settlement system.  Indi a, therefore, urged the United States to fully 
implement the DSB's recommendations in this dispute.   
11. The representative of Viet Nam
 said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report.  Like previous speakers, Viet Nam s upported the statement made by Cuba and urged the 
United States to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings. 
12. The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  said that her country considered 
its participation in the discussion under the Ag enda item on surveillance of implementation of 
recommendations adopted by the DSB to be of utmo st importance since it helped to safeguard the 
strength of the DSB, which was one of the greatest achievements of the Uruguay Round.  Under this 
Agenda item, Venezuela was particularly interested in the Section 211 dispute.  This was due to the 
fact that in spite of the recommendations pertaining to this dispute, which had been adopted by the 
DSB more than eight years ago, the United States con tinued to apply legislation that was contrary to 
the TRIPS Agreement.  This had undermined, a nd continued to undermine, the government and 
people of Cuba.  Venezuela, once again, noted th e US status report submitted on 9 April 2010, was 
merely a copy of the previous ones with a change  of date.  As Venezuela had pointed out on many 
occasions, this constituted "action without results" a nd thus showed a lack of commitment towards the 
DSB and WTO Members.  Venezuela supported Cuba and called upon the United States to comply with the DSB's recommendations and to end the economic, commercial and fi nancial embargo policy, 
which Venezuela condemned.   WT/DSB/M/282 
 Page 5 
 
 
  13. The representative of Paraguay  said that her country thanked the United States for its status 
report.  Paraguay called on the United States to ensure prompt compliance with the DSB's recommendations and to repeal Section 211.  
14. The representative of Brazil
 said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report.  Brazil reiterated its seri ous concerns about the lack of progress repeatedly reported by the 
United States with regard to the implementation of the DSB's recommendations and ruling in this 
dispute.  Brazil joined previous speakers in ur ging the United States to bring its measures into 
conformity with its multilateral ob ligations in the nearest future. 
15. The representative of Costa Rica  said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report.  Costa Rica wished to reiterate, once again, the importance of complying with the provisions of 
Article 21.1 of the DSU, which called for prompt  compliance with the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings.  Costa Rica called on the US administration to  work with the US Congress to comply with the 
DSB's recommendations, as provided for in the DSU provisions.  
16. The representative of Argentina  said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report.  Argentina, once again, reiterated its con cern over the lack of progress in the implementation 
of the recommendations in this case, which had nega tive effects for the whole system, and not only 
for the parties to this dispute.  Therefore, Argentin a, once again, called on the parties to the dispute, in 
particular the United States, to take measures so as to  fully implement the findings in this case.  In that 
regard, Argentina supported Ecuador's request for more  information and said that it would be useful to 
know at least what specific progress had been made in terms of implementation by the parties. 
17. The representative of Mexico  said that his country supported Members who sought a solution 
to this dispute, either through compliance or via some  other legal remedies provided for in the DSU.  
Mexico noted that, if a Member considered that an outcome in a particular dispute was not satisfactory, it could initiate a fresh dispute on the same matter.   
18. The representative of the United States
 said that, in response to the statements made by some 
Members that this dispute raised concerns for th e dispute settlement system, as the United States had 
noted on several occasions, it did not believe that t hose concerns were well-founded.  In addition, as 
the United States had noted at the previous DSB meeting, in March 2010, the Committee on the Judiciary of the US House of Representatives had held a hearing on certain proposals to implement 
the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute. 
19. The representative of Cuba
 said that the Section 211 dispute was a special case.  Although 
there had been other long-standing disputes under th e WTO, this one stood out for other additional 
reasons.  It constituted a serious breach by one of the leading Members of the multilateral trading system.  That Member obliged other Members to comply with intellectual property rights.  The 
situation seemed to make a mockery of all the Me mbers that had regularly expressed concern over the 
lack of implementation.  This case undermined not merely the TRIPS Agreement, but also the WTO 
system and in particular the credibility of the DSB,  the cornerstone of the WTO.  The concerns which 
a significant number of Members had raised for eight years did not seem to matter to the 
United States.  The US attitude was prejudicial to both the multilateral trading system and the system 
of international relations. 
20. The DSB took note
 of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. WT/DSB/M/282 
Page 6  
 
  (b) United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan:  
Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.89) 
21. The Chairman
 drew attention to document WT/DS184/ 15/Add.89, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the impl ementation of the DSB's recommendations in the 
case concerning US anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan. 
22. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 8 April 2010, in accordance with Ar ticle 21.6 of the DSU.  As of 23 November 2002, 
the US authorities had addressed the DSB's recommendations and rulings with respect to the calculation of anti-dumping margins in the hot-rolled steel anti-dumping duty inv estigation at issue in 
this dispute.  Details were provided in documen t WT/DS184/15/Add.3.  With respect to the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings that were not already addressed by the US authorities, the US 
administration would work with the US Congress with respect to appropriate statutory measures that would resolve this matter. 
23. The representative of Japan
 said that his country thanked the United States for its statement 
and its latest status report.  Japan took note of the US report that it 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 tangible progress for the remaining part of the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  Full and prompt implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings was "essential to the effective functioning of the WTO and the 
maintenance of a proper balance of th e rights and obligations of Members".
2  Japan called on the 
United States to fully implement the DSB's recommendations in this long-standing dispute without 
further delay. 
24. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(c) United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act:  Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/Add.64) 
25. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS160/ 24/Add.64, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the impl ementation of the DSB's recommendations in the 
case concerning Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act. 
26. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 8 April 2010, 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 to this matter. 
27. The representative of the European Union  said that the United States had again reported non-
compliance and her delegation was again disappointed, especially in light of the importance that the 
United States attached to intellectual property protec tion.  The EU was aware that the United States 
was in favour of strong intellectual property protect ion throughout the world, and thus hoped that it 
would lead by example.  The EU remained read y to work with the US  authorities towards the 
complete resolution of this case, and hoped that th e financial loss suffered by the EU industry could 
be soon brought to an end. 
28. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
                                                      
2 Article 3.3 of the DSU.  WT/DSB/M/282 
 Page 7 
 
 
  (d) European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products:  
Status  report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.27) 
29. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS291/ 37/Add.27, 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 affecting the a pproval and marketing of biotech products. 
30. The representative of the European Union  said that her delegation was pleased to have 
reached mutually agreed solutions on this matter with two out of the three complainants.  Through 
those agreements, the EU, Argentina and Canada ha d engaged in a continued dialogue on issues 
related to biotechnology of mutual interest, which w as the best approach to this complex issue.  The 
EU thanked Argentina and Canada  for their cooperative and constr uctive approach and invited the 
United States to re-engage on this path.  The EU regulatory procedures on biotech products continued 
to work as foreseen in the legislation.  The mo st recent examples were the five authorizations 
decisions on GMOs issued on 2 March 2010, including one  for cultivation.  With those authorizations, 
the number of GMOs authorized since the date of est ablishment of the Panel had risen to twenty-nine. 
31. The representative of the United States  said that his country thanked the EU for its status 
report and its statement.  As the United States had noted at the March DSB meeting, the new 
Commission had recently approved five long-pending biotech applications, including an application 
that had first been filed in 1996.  Although those five approvals represented less than 10 per cent of 
the total backlog of pending applications, the Unit ed States was hopeful that they indicated a new 
commitment on the part of the EU to address the long-standing problems in the operation of its approval system for biotech products.  The Unite d States looked forward to progress in the coming 
months.   
32. 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.7) 
33. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS322/ 36/Add.7, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the impl ementation of the DSB's recommendations in the 
case concerning US measures relating to zeroing and sunset reviews. 
34. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 8 April 2010, in accordance with Artic le 21.6 of the DSU.  As noted in the status 
report, the United States had taken steps to implem ent the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this 
dispute.  With respect to the outstanding issues, the United States would con tinue to consult with 
interested parties in order to address those issues. 
35. The representative of Japan  said that his country thanked the United States for its statement 
and its latest status report.  The United States had st ated in its status reports that it "will continue to 
consult with interested parties in order to address the findings contained in [the Appellate Body and 
the panel] reports" adopted by the DSB on 31 Au gust 2009.  Japan took this statement as an 
expression of commitment by the United States to fully implement the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings.  Japan called on the United States to fulfil its commitment by taking immediate and concrete 
action to this end so as to resolve this dispute. 
36. The representative of the European Union  said that her delegation wished to reiterate its 
disappointment over the lack of any real progress by the United States on compliance, with adverse WT/DSB/M/282 
Page 8  
 
  rulings on zeroing in this dispute, and reca lled that immediate compliance with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings was not an option, but an obligation, under the DSU. 
37. 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.4) 
38. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS350/ 18/Add.4, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the impl ementation of the DSB's recommendations in the 
case concerning the existence and application of zeroing methodology by the United States. 
39. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 8 April 2010, in accordance with Artic le 21.6 of the DSU.  As noted in that status 
report, the United States had taken steps to implem ent the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this 
dispute.  With regard to the remaining issues, the United States would continue to consult with interested parties. 
40. The representative of the European Union
 said that her delegation welcomed recent public 
statements by US officials that the United States was now trying to find a way to comply with the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings on zeroing.  The EU regretted that it had taken so many years of 
litigation, but hoped that the United States would now ta ke the necessary steps to bring itself into full 
compliance without any further delay.  This dispute, and other ongoing zeroing disputes, should 
provide the United States with an opportunity to pu t words into actions.  The EU concerns about the 
lack of implementation on the part of the United St ates in this dispute were  well known and recorded 
in the minutes of past DSB meetings.  Despite th e aforementioned encouraging political statements, 
the recently published final determination in its Section 129 proceeding (12 March 2010) left the EU 
perplexed as to the US intentions on compliance wi th the ruling in this dispute.  The EU commended 
the fact that the United States would "continue to c onsult with interested parties in order to address 
the other recommendations and rulings of the DSB", as it had stated in its status reports, but what did 
that mean?  All the measures in question could be implemented immediately, just by eliminating the 
line of computer code which led to zeroing.  The EU , therefore, urged the United States to reconsider 
its Section 129 determination immediately and to impl ement.  The EU also noted that, once again, the 
United States had not presented a status report on the progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings in the dispute:  "US – Laws,  Regulation and Methodology for 
Calculating Dumping Margins" (DS294).  The EU w ondered if the lack of status reports meant that 
the United States considered to have brought itself into full compliance with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in this dispute. 
41. The representative of the United States
 recalled that, with respect to the EU's comment 
regarding the lack of a status report in DS294, this was the approach that the EU itself had taken in the 
original "EC - Hormones" dispute.  When the EU had objected to the US and Canadian requests for 
authorization to suspend concessions, the EU had ceased providing status reports.  Here, too, the 
United States had objected to the EU's request for au thorization, referring the matter to arbitration.  
The United States noted that that dispute was now pending before an arbitrator under Article 22.6 of 
the DSU, and that the hearing in  that proceeding would be open to  observation by all Members and 
the public. 
42. The representative of Japan  said that the United States had stated that since the matter in 
DS294 was currently before Article 22.6 arbitration, there was no need for filing the status report.  
The reason for that was that the EU in the orig inal "EC - Hormones" dispute had taken the same 
approach.  However, Japan had not taken such an approach in the disputes it was involved in and,  WT/DSB/M/282 
 Page 9 
 
 
  therefore, expected that the United States would conti nue to file its status report in the dispute "US – 
Measures Relating to Zeroing and Sunset Re views" (DS322) until it fully complied.  
43. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(g) Colombia – Indicative prices and restrictions on ports of entry:  Status report by Colombia 
(WT/DS366/15) 
44. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS366/ 15, which contained the status report 
by Colombia on progress in the implementation of  the DSB's recommendations in the case concerning 
Colombia's indicative prices and restrictions on ports of entry. 
45. The representative of Colombia  said that, in line with Article 21.6 of the DSU, his country 
wished to inform the DSB that it had fully impl emented the DSB's rulings and recommendations with 
respect of the dispute:  "Colombia - Indicative Pric es and Restrictions on Ports of Entry" within the 
reasonable period of time, as set by the Arbitrator  in its Award of 2 October 2009.  In order to 
implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings, Colombia had made a number of substantive 
changes to its customs control and customs valuation system.  It had terminated the use of indicative 
prices, had introduced a system of customs contro l based on risk assessment  and risk management, 
and had established a clear distinction between the pa yment of guarantees and the payment of duties.  
Furthermore, Colombia had abolished the challenge d ports of entry measure in its entirety and had 
terminated the "advance imports declaration" re quirement imposed on Panama.  Colombia's written 
status report, submitted before the DSB at the pr esent meeting, contained more detailed information 
regarding the above-mentioned measures.  Colombia believed that, with those actions, it was now in 
full conformity with its WTO obligations.  
46. The representative of Panama  said that his country thanked Colombia for its status report in 
this dispute.  Panama had taken due note of the m odifications referred to in the status report and was 
carefully assessing the new customs control system introdu ced by Colombia in order to verify that the 
problems at the origin of this dispute had been r esolved.  The WTO-inconsistent measures imposed by 
Colombia had a serious impact on commercial activ ities that were very important to Panama's 
economy.  For Panama, it was still unclear how th e new Colombian risk management-based system 
would work in practice.  It was, therefore, necessar y to receive further information on this new system 
and to monitor it closely so as to determine whet her Colombia was meeting its WTO obligations.  
Panama would not wish to see any measures with si milar effect like the previous ones, which would 
again affect trade relations between the two countries that Panama valued and hoped to further in the 
future.  Over the period of this and next year, Panama would follow up and monitor the new 
Colombian system in order to understand how it worked  in practice, so as to determine whether the 
regulatory measures implemented by Colombia were  in conformity with its obligations under the 
WTO Agreements and the Panel's ruling.  Furtherm ore, on 24 February 2010 Colombia and Panama 
had signed a sequencing agreement, which, together with Panama's  continuous monitoring, would 
ensure that the prejudice caused to Panama was not repeated.  Once Panama finished assessing the 
new system, within a relevant time-frame, it would be  able to decide whether or not it was necessary 
to take any further action in relation to this dispute.  
47. The DSB took note  of the statements. WT/DSB/M/282 
Page 10  
 
  2. 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 
48. The Chairman
 said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
the European Union and Japan.  He then i nvited the respective representatives to speak. 
49. The representative of Japan  said that, according to the CDSOA 2009 Annual Reports issued 
on 10 December 2009, some US$248 million had been distributed for FY2009.3  Those latest annual 
distributions showed that the CDSOA remained oper ational.  In fact, as US Customs and Border 
Protection explained, "the distribution process will continue for an undetermined period".4  Japan 
urged the United States to stop illegal distributions and repeal the CDSOA, not just in form but in 
substance, so as to resolve this dispute once and fo r all.  According to Article 21.6 of the DSU, the 
United States was under obligation to provide the DSB with a status report in this dispute. 
50. The representative of the European Union  said that, on 14 April 2010, the EU had adopted the 
Regulation that, for the fifth year, ad justed the level of retaliatory measures applied in this dispute and 
brought it up to US$95.38 million as from 1 May 2010.  The level of retaliatory measures reflected 
the proportionate increase of the amount dis bursed to US companies from anti-dumping and 
countervailing duties collected on EU products, as had been published in the latest distribution of 
October 2009.  That amount proved that duties continue d to be distributed to the US industry.  Once 
again, the EU wished to ask the United States when it would effectively stop the transfer of those 
duties to the US industry and, hence, put an en e nd to the condemned measure.  The EU renewed its 
call on the United States to abide by its clear obliga tion under Article 21.6 of the DSU and to submit 
status reports on implementation in this dispute. 
51. The representative of India  said that her country thanked the EU and Japan for bringing this 
issue, once again, before the DSB and shared their concerns.  India remained disappointed at the US 
maintenance of those WTO-inconsistent disburseme nts.  As mentioned by previous speakers, the 
CDSOA remained fully operational and allowed for disbursements by the US administration to its 
domestic industry.  This fact continued to raise concerns to WTO Members.  As reiterated earlier, 
India was concerned that non-compliance by Members led to a growing lack of credibility of the WTO dispute settlement system.  India agreed with EU and Japan that the Byrd Amendment remained 
subject to the surveillance of the DSB until th e United States ceased to administer it.  
52. The representative of Brazil
 said that his country thanked Japan and the EU for keeping this 
item on the DSB's Agenda.  Brazil urged the United States to stop making disbursements pursuant to 
the CDSOA, and to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute.  As long as 
full compliance was not achieved, the United States was required to provide status reports in this 
dispute, pursuant to Article 21.6 of the DSU, the purpose of which was to keep under surveillance the 
implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings. 
53. The representative of Canada  said that his country agreed with the EU and Japan that the 
Byrd Amendment remained subject  to the surveillance of the DS B until the United States ceased to 
administer it. 
                                                      
3 See US Customs and Border Protection's website at:  
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/prio rity_trade/add_cvd/cont_dump/cdsoa _09/report/fy09_a nnual_report.xml  
4 See US Customs and Border Protection's website at: 
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/tr ade/priority_trade/add_cvd/cont_dump/cont_dump_faq.xml   WT/DSB/M/282 
 Page 11 
 
 
  54. The representative of China  said that her country thanked th e EU and Japan for, once again, 
raising this item at the DSB meeting.  China shared  the concerns of previous speakers and wished to 
join them in urging the United States to comply fully with the DSB's rulings. 
55. The representative of Thailand  said that his country thanked Japan and the EU for bringing 
this item before the DSB.  Thailand remained disappointed at the US maintenance of the WTO-
inconsistent disbursements and, therefore, urged the United States to cease the disbursements, repeal 
the Byrd Amendment with immediate practical eff ect, and resume providing status reports until such 
actions were taken and this matter was fully resolved. 
56. The representative of the United States  said that as his country had explained at previous DSB 
meetings, the US 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 those disputes.  Furthermore, the Un ited States recalled that Members had acknowledged 
that the 2006 Deficit Reduction Act did not permit the distribution of duties collected on goods entered after 1 October 2007.  The United States, therefore, did not understand the purpose for which 
the EU and Japan had inscribed this item on the Ag enda of the present meeting.  With respect to 
comments regarding further status reports in this ma tter, as it had already been explained at previous 
DSB meetings, the United States failed to see  what purpose would be served by the further 
submission of status reports repeating the progress the United States had made in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  The Unite d States regretted that the EU had decided to 
increase the level of its suspension of concessions and was perplexed at this decision.  In the course of 
this dispute, the EU had made clear that its  purpose in suspending concessions was to "induce 
compliance".  Now that the United States had take n all steps necessary to comply with the DSB's 
rulings and recommendations, it failed to see how the continued suspension of concessions would 
further that purpose.  In any ev ent, the United States would be reviewing carefully the new measures 
taken by the EU and had not concluded that it was able  to share the EU's characterization at this time.  
As the United States had observed previously, the DSB only authorized the suspension of concessions 
or other obligations as provided in the Award of the Arbitrator. 
57. The DSB took note
 of the statements. 
3. European Communities – Export subsidies on sugar 
(a) Statements by Australia, Brazil and Thailand 
58. The Chairman  said that the item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
Australia, Brazil and Thailand. 
59. The representative of Australia , speaking also on behalf of Brazil and Thailand, said that 
Australia, Brazil and Thailand wished to make a joint statement and to recall their statements made at the DSB meetings on 18 February 2010 a nd 19 March 2010, as well as at the Committee on 
Agriculture on 10 March 2010, expressing their concern at the recent decision of the European Union 
to export out-of-quota sugar in excess of its a nnual scheduled quantity commitment level of 1.2735 
million tonnes.  The EU had justified its decision on the basis of the high sugar prices at that time.  However, those additional exports negatively affect ed market sentiment and had driven world prices 
down.  In fact, world sugar prices had fallen almo st 25 per cent between February and March.  By 
signalling to EU sugar producers that excess out-of-quot a sugar could be exported, the EU risked a 
continuous cycle of overproduction and artificially  depressed global prices, unwinding the important 
reforms undertaken by the EU following the "EC - Sugar" dispute findings.  As Members would 
recall, at the 18 February 2010 DSB meeting, the EU  had offered to provide the necessary technical 
information underpinning its decision to export additi onal sugar.  The EU had also offered to provide WT/DSB/M/282 
Page 12  
 
  such information at the 10 March 2010 meeting of the Committee on Agriculture.  However, it 
appeared that the EU had now withdrawn that offe r.  Australia, Brazil and Thailand urged the EU to 
provide the necessary technical information, and to  justify the WTO-consistency of its decision to 
export additional sugar.  
60. The representative of the European Union
 said that her delegation had already highlighted, at 
the two previous DSB meetings, that its deci sion to export 0.5 million tonnes of sugar was a 
temporary measure, adopted in view of the excepti onal market conditions at both the EU and world 
level.  World prices had been at a record high level creating a shortage of sugar which affected 
importing developing countries.  The EU did not e xpect those market conditions to last beyond the 
season 2009-2010.  The export of 0.5 million tonnes w as now exhausted and th e EU had not renewed 
that temporary decision.  The decision fully resp ected the EU's international obligations, as the 
quantities on sale were not subsidized and happened  at a time when world sugar prices were higher 
than EU production costs and EU producers had b ecome much more competitive following the drastic 
overhaul of the EU Common Market Organisation for sugar.  The EU continued to respect its WTO 
commitments and reiterated its insistence on its right  to engage in international trade – even if 
competing exporters of other WTO Members woul d, for rather obvious reasons of commercial 
interest, have preferred otherwise.  The EU c ontinued to offer readiness to continue a dialogue 
regarding the background underpinning it s temporary decision to export sugar. 
61. The DSB took note  of the statements. 
4. Philippines – Taxes on distilled spirits 
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by the United States (WT/DS403/4) 
62. The Chairman  recalled that the DSB had considered this matter at its meeting on 8 April 2010 
and had agreed to revert to it.  He drew at tention to the communication from the United States 
contained in document WT/DS403/4 and  invited th e representative of the United States to speak. 
63. The representative of the United States  said that as his country had mentioned at the previous 
DSB meeting, the United States had been concerned with Philippine excise ta xes on distilled spirits 
for many years.  The Philippines taxed distilled spirits at different rates depending on the product 
from which the spirit was distilled.  Spirits di stilled from products typically produced in the 
Philippines were taxed at a low rate, while ot her distilled spirits were taxed at rates from 
approximately ten to 40 times higher.   As explained in the US panel request, those taxes appeared to 
be inconsistent with the first and second sen tences of Article III:2 of the GATT 1994.  The 
United States continued to urge the Philippines to  address the concerns that had been raised, and 
hoped that the Philippines would soon take action to  level the playing field for imported and domestic 
spirits in the Philippine market.  However, given th at the US concerns had not been addressed to date, 
the United States requested that the DSB, pursuant to  Article 9.1 of the DSU, refer the matter to the 
Panel that had been established at the 19 January  2010 DSB meeting to examine the EU's complaint 
on the same matter (WT/DS396). 
64. The representative of the Philippines  said that his country was disappointed that the 
United States had chosen to renew its request to the DSB for the establishment of a panel in this 
matter.  The Philippines reiterated, for the record , its firm commitment to a rules-based multilateral 
trading system, and that it was its fundamental polic y to be fully consistent with the international 
obligations, including those undertaken under the WTO.  It was in this spirit that the Philippines had 
consulted with the United States in February, with the participation of the EU, and had clarified the 
non-discriminatory and impartial nature of its excise  tax regime on distilled spirits.  With the renewed 
request from the United States, the Philippines rec ognized that a panel would be established at the 
present meeting.  The Philippines did not object to th e request, under Article 9.1 of the DSU, that a  WT/DSB/M/282 
 Page 13 
 
 
  single panel be established to examine the complaints  in this dispute and in DS396.  The Philippines 
remained firmly of the view that this matter could ha ve been resolved to the mutual satisfaction of all 
the parties if the respective inte rests, legitimate sensitivities, and policy objectives of all sides were 
taken into account to balance their respective intere sts.  Thus, this second request for a panel at the 
present meeting was deeply regrettable. 
65. The representative of the European Union  said that her delegation supported the US request 
for a single panel under Article 9.1 of the DSU. 
66. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  that the request by the United States for the 
establishment of a panel with standard terms of re ference was accepted, and that as provided for in 
Article 9.1 of the DSU in respect of multiple co mplainants, the Panel established at the 19 January 
2010 DSB meeting to examine the complaint by th e EU would also examine the US complaint 
contained in document WT/DS403/4.   
67. The Chairman  said that since a single Panel was established, those delegations who had 
reserved their third-party rights to participate in the Panel established at the request of the EU shall be 
considered as third parties in the single Panel.  He recalled that Australia,  China , India,  Mexico , 
Thailand , Chinese Taipei  and the United States  had reserved third-party rights to participate in the 
Panel established at the request of the EU on 19 Janua ry 2010.  Furthermore, he also invited other 
delegations who would wish to reserve third-party righ ts to participate in the proceedings of the single 
Panel.  The representative of the European Union  reserved third-party rights. 
68. The DSB took note  of the statement.  
5. United States – Use of zeroing in anti-dum ping measures involving products from Korea 
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by Korea (WT/DS402/3) 
69. The Chairman  drew attention to the communication from Korea contained in document 
WT/DS402/3, and invited the representative of Korea to speak. 
70. The representative of Korea  said that, on 24 November 2009, his country had requested 
consultations regarding the practice called "zer oing" in anti-dumping investigations by the 
United States on stainless steel plate in coils, stainless steel sheet and strip in coils, and diamond 
sawblades.  Korea and the United States had held consultations for a prompt settlement, however, 
those consultations had failed to resolve the disput e.  "Zeroing" in anti-dumping investigations had 
repeatedly been found inconsistent with the Anti- Dumping Agreement.  The United States had not 
contested those rulings since the dispute on "US - Softwood Lumber V" (DS264) and had announced that it would no longer utilize zeroing in investigati ons that were pending as of 22 February 2007.  
Korea noted that the United States had agreed to e xpedited proceedings in previous zeroing disputes 
with Ecuador and Thailand.  With the agreemen ts in place, those disputes had achieved prompt 
settlements and implementation which Korea believed was envisioned in Article 3.3 of the DSU.  
Korea believed that the dispute at hand could also be  settled in a similar time-saving manner.  Korea 
considered the measures by the United States to be inconsistent with Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement.  Accordingly, Korea request ed that the DSB establish a panel pursuant to 
Article 6 of the DSU, with standard terms of refe rence, to examine the matter described in Korea's 
panel request. 
71. The representative of the United States
 said that his country was disappointed that Korea had 
chosen to move forward with a panel request at the present meeting.  As Korea had acknowledged in 
its request, the US Department of Commerce had di scontinued zeroing in the context of average-to-WT/DSB/M/282 
Page 14  
 
  average comparisons in investiga tions.  The United States was not in a position to agree to the 
establishment of a panel at the present meeting.  
72. The DSB took note
 of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter. 
6. United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain shrimp from Viet Nam 
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by Viet Nam (WT/DS404/5) 
73. The Chairman  drew attention to the communication from Viet Nam contained in document 
WT/DS404/5, and invited the representative of Viet Nam to speak. 
74. The representative of Viet Nam  said that his country found itself in a very unusual position at 
the present meeting, as it was requesting the establishm ent of a panel for the first time since Viet Nam 
had joined the WTO.  Viet Nam ha d taken this action only after care ful deliberation and consultations 
with the United States.  The detailed request for the establishment of a panel to review the dispute had 
been circulated to Members in document WT/D S404/5, dated 9 April 2010.  The central issue 
involved in Viet Nam's request for a panel was th e issue of zeroing and, specifically, zeroing in 
periodic reviews under US law.  In Viet Nam's vi ew, this issue had been decided already by WTO 
panels and the Appellate Body on  various occasions.  Yet, the United States had failed to implement 
the reports of the Appellate Body and continued to  apply zeroing in administrative reviews, including 
those applied to products from Viet Nam.  Un fortunately, zeroing was not the only hurdle to 
termination of the anti-dumping measures.  The Unit ed States had taken two additional actions which, 
under its precedent, would also prevent the anti-dumping measures from being sunset.  First, it had consistently over the period of the second, third and fourth review declined to specifically review 
major exporters that had requested such reviews.  Despite the fact that the United States had found no 
margins of dumping in the first, second or third revi ew of the companies specifically investigated, it 
had continued to assign margins of dumping to compani es not investigated, despite their request to be 
investigated and, in at least one case, the submissi on of a full response.  The United States was clearly 
abusing the exceptions provided for in Articles 6.10 and 9.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by 
refusing, throughout this proceeding, to allow comp anies that were not dumping to demonstrate this 
through being investigated.  In addition to continuing to assign marg ins to uninvestigated companies 
that had sought to be investigated over a period of five years, the United States had also found 
margins of dumping in determining a "Viet Nam wide  rate" for companies that had not responded to 
questionnaires.  It was not certain that those compan ies actually existed, pr oduced or exported shrimp, 
or should even be subject to the anti-dumping me asures.  There was no such authority for the so-
called Viet Nam wide rate in either the Anti- Dumping Agreement or Viet Nam's Protocol of 
Accession to the WTO.   
75. Viet Nam had requested consultations with th e United States regarding certain anti-dumping 
measures imposed by the United States on imports of certain shrimp from Viet Nam on 1 February 2010, and the request had been circul ated on 4 February 2010 as document WT/DS404/1 – 
G/L/915 – G/ADP/D81/1.  Viet Nam and the Unite d States had held consultations on 23 March 2010 
in Geneva.  Those consultations had been held with the hope of reaching a mutually satisfactory 
solution.  During the consultations, the parties ha d gained a better understanding of the issues under 
consideration, but had not reached a resolution of the matter.  Consequently, Viet Nam had no choice 
but to pursue those issues to a panel.  Viet Nam cons idered that the measures at issue in this dispute 
were inconsistent with the US obligations under the Anti-Dumping Agreement;  the GATT 1994;  the 
Marrakesh Agreement;  and the Protocol of Access ion of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, 
WT/L/662, 15 November 2006 and paragraphs 254 a nd 255 of the Report of the Working Party on 
Accession of Viet Nam, WT/ACC/VNM/48, 26 Octobe r 2006.  Accordingly, Viet Nam respectfully 
requested that a panel be established, with standard  terms of reference, pursuant to Articles 4.7 and 6 
of the DSU, Article XXIII of the GATT 1994, a nd Article 17.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  WT/DSB/M/282 
 Page 15 
 
 
  76. The representative of the United States  said that his country was disappointed that Viet Nam 
had chosen to move forward with a request for pane l establishment.  The United States wanted to also 
point out that the panel request before the DSB in cluded several items that raised concerns for the 
United States.  For example, Viet Nam had identified as measures in its panel request, among other things, the original anti-dumping investigation of shrimp from Viet Nam as well as the "initiation" of 
the five-year sunset review.  Those items had not been identified in Viet Nam's request for 
consultations and thus had not been the subject of consultations.  Additionally, the original anti-
dumping investigation, as well as the first annual re view of the anti-dumping order, had each been 
initiated pursuant to applications received prior to Vi et Nam's accession to th e WTO.  Thus, pursuant 
to Article 18.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, those proceedings were not subject to the Anti-
Dumping Agreement and were not properly a subject of review by a WTO dispute settlement panel.  
The fourth administrative review, also identified by  Viet Nam as a measure in its panel request, had 
not yet been completed, and thus there was no meas ure for a panel to review.  Likewise, the sunset 
review had yet to be completed, and thus did not constitute a measure.  Finally, it was unclear from 
Viet Nam's panel request, which specifically identifi ed the "initiation" of the sunset review as a 
measure, what WTO obligations Viet Nam alleged the United States had breached with respect to the 
sunset review.  For all of those reasons, the Unite d States strongly urged Viet Nam to reconsider its 
decision to pursue a panel in this dispute, and th e United States was not in a position to agree to the 
establishment of a panel at this time. 
77. The DSB took note
 of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter. 
7. European Union – Anti-dumping measu res on certain footwear from China  
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by China (WT/DS405/2) 
78. The Chairman  drew attention to the communicati on from China contained in document 
WT/DS405/2, and invited the representative of China to speak. 
79. The representative of China  said that, pursuant to Articles 4 and 6 of the DSU, 
Article XXIII:2 of the GATT 1994 and Articles 17.4 and 17.5 of the Anti-dumping Agreement, China 
requested the DSB to establish a panel, with standa rd terms of reference, to examine the anti-dumping 
measures of the EU on certain Chinese footwear pr oducts.  The legal basis for challenging those 
measures were elaborated in China's panel request contained in WT/DS405/2.  China considered that 
Article 9(5) of the EU's Basic Anti-Dumping Regulati on, which formed part of the legal basis for the 
imposition of anti-dumping measures on certain Chin ese footwear products, was inconsistent as such 
with the provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreem ent, the GATT 1994, the WTO Agreement and the 
Protocol on the Accession of China.  Furthermore, the determinations of the EU in the original, and 
the expiry review investigations and the manner in which they had been reached, were inconsistent 
with various provisions of the above-mentioned agreements with regard to both procedural and 
substantive aspects.  China, therefore, considered  that the benefits accruing from it under the above-
mentioned agreements were bei ng nullified and impaired by Article 9(5) and by the EU's anti-
dumping measure imposed on Chinese footwear products.  China had requested consultations with the 
EU on 4 February 2010.  Consultations had been  held via video conference on 31 March 2010, but 
had failed to resolve China's concerns and no mu tually satisfactory solution had been reached.  
Therefore, China requested the DSB to establish a pa nel to ensure the protection of China's legitimate 
rights and benefits under the WTO Agreements.  Ch ina, once again, urged the EU to bring its 
legislation into line with the above-mentioned agr eements and to terminate the measure on Chinese 
footwear products on account of their inconsistency with the WTO rules. 
80. The representative of the European Union  said that her delegation took note of China's 
request for the establishment of a panel.  The EU  recalled that anti-dumping measures were not about 
protectionism, but about fighting unfair trade.  The EU strictly followed the applicable WTO rules in WT/DSB/M/282 
Page 16  
 
  all its anti-dumping cases and that was also the ca se for the measures on which China was seeking a 
panel.  The EU was strongly convinced of the strength of its case and stood ready to defend its 
measures which it considered to be fully consistent with WTO law.  In addition, the EU considered 
the Chinese panel request premature and was of the view that consultations had not been held on a 
large number of claims.  The EU had offered a se cond round of consultations in order to obtain a 
satisfactory adjustment of the matter, as should be the purpose of consultations in line with the text 
and the spirit of the DSU.  The EU regretted the st ep taken by China to requ est the establishment of a 
panel in this dispute, and oppo sed the establishment of a panel. 
81. The DSB took note
 of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter. 
8. China – Measures affecting the protection and enforcement of intellectual property 
rights  
(a) Statement by China  
(b) Statement by the United States 
82. The representative of China , speaking under "Other Busi ness", recalled that, at the 
19 March 2010 DSB meeting, her country had made  a statement on progress in the implementation 
regarding the dispute:  "China – Measures Affec ting the Protection and Enforcement of Intellectual 
Property Rights" (WT/DS362) and had informed th e DSB that China had completed all necessary 
domestic legislative procedures in implementing the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this 
dispute.  For the purpose of transp arency, China wished to provide fu rther information related to those 
domestic legislative procedures in this case.  On 26 February 2010, the thirteenth session of the 
Standing Committee of the 11th National People' s Congress (NPC) of China had approved the 
Decision of the Standing Committee of National People's Congress (NPC) on the Amendments of 
Copyright Law of the People's Republic of China.  The Decision revised Article 4, among others, of 
the Copyright Law of the People's Republic of  China.  The Decision had been published on 
26 February 2010 and had come into force on 1 April 2010.  On 17 March 2010, the State Council had approved the Decision of State Council on the Amendments of Regulations on Customs 
Protection of Intellectual Property Rights of the Pe ople's Republic of China.  The Decision revised 
Article 27, among others, of the Regulations on Cust oms Protection of Intellectual Property Rights of 
the People's Republic of China.  The Decision ha d been published on 24 March 2010 and had come 
into force on 1 April 2010.  With the coming-into -force of those two Decisions, China had brought its 
measures under this dispute into conformity with the DSB's recommendations and rulings. 
83. The representative of the United States
 said that his country was surprised that China had not 
provided a status report at the present meeting.  The United States recalled that 20 March 2010 was 
the expiration of the reasonable period of time for China to comply in this dispute.  At the 19 March 2010 DSB meeting, China had informed Memb ers that it had not yet brought into force all 
the measures needed to comply with the DSB's r ecommendations and rulings in this dispute.  While 
the United States thanked China for its statement at th e present meeting, in light of the fact that China 
had not yet completed implementation by the previo us month's DSB meeting, the United States would 
have expected China to submit another status report.  For example, the United States noted that Colombia, earlier in the present meeting, had presente d a status report in order to announce its claim 
of compliance to Members.  While China had, at the present meeting, stated that it had implemented 
the DSB's recommendations and rulings with respect to its customs regime, the United States was not in a position to share China's asse ssment at this time.  The Unite d States had begun working with 
China bilaterally on addressing certain questions th e United States had and looked forward to further 
discussions with China on this issue.  WT/DSB/M/282 
 Page 17 
 
 
  84. The representative of China  said that her country wished to briefly respond to the point 
concerning the status report made by the United States.  Article 21.6 of the DSU provided that "unless the DSB decides otherwise, the issue of implemen tation of the recommendations or rulings shall be 
placed on the Agenda of the DSB meeting after six months following the date of establishment of the 
reasonable period of time, pursuant to paragraph 3,  and shall remain on the DSB's Agenda until the 
issue is resolved".  As mentioned by China, th e two decisions had come into force on 1 April 2010 
and, thus, China believed that the issue had been  resolved and there was no reason for China to 
provide a status report at the present meeting.  Ne vertheless, China had provided further information 
and had expressed its positions concerning the impl ementation in this dispute for the purpose of 
further clarification and transparency. 
85. The representative of the United States
 said that, in response to China's statement, his country 
would point out that at the end of the March 2010 DS B meeting, the DSB had agreed to revert to this 
matter at the present DSB meeting.  Furthermore, as of the previous DSB meeting, the measures China said it had taken had not yet entered into force and, thus, as of the present day, there was a lack 
of transparency for WTO Members regarding the status of those measures. 
86. The DSB took note
 of the statements.  
__________