RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DSB/M/275 
22 December 2009 
 (09-6678) 
Dispute Settlement Body 
23 October 2009  
 
 
  
MINUTES OF MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard
 
on 23 October 2009  
 
Chairman:  Mr. John Gero (Canada) 
 
 
Prior to the adoption of the Agenda1 
 Subjects discussed
: Page  
 
1. Surveillance of implementation of recommendations adopted by the DSB.........................3  
(a) United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appr opriations Act of 1998:  Status report by 
the United States .............................................................................................................. ...........4  
(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 .............................................................................................................. ...........7  
(d) European Communities2 – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products:  Status report by the European Communities..............................................................8  
(e) European Communities – Regime for the importation, sale and distribution of bananas:  Second recourse to Article 21.5 of  the DSU by Ecuador:  Status report by 
the European Communities....................................................................................................... ..9
 
(f) United States – Laws, regulations and methodology for calculating dumping margins 
("zeroing"):  Status repor t by the Unite d States ........................................................................11  
(g) United States – Measures relating to zeroing and sunset reviews:  Status report by 
the United States .............................................................................................................. .........12  
2. United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000:  
Implementation of the recommenda tions adopted by the DSB ..........................................13  
(a) Statements by the European Communities and Japan...............................................................13  
                                                      
1 See page 2. 
2 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 Lisbon, 13 December 2007) entered into force.  On 
29 November 2009, the WTO received a Verbal Note (WT/L/779) from the Council of the Eu ropean 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/275 
Page 2  
 
  3.
 United States – Certain country of origin labelling (COOL) requirements ......................14  
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by Canada.................................................................14  
4. United States – Certain country of  origin labelling requirements .....................................14  
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by Mexico ................................................................14  
5. European Communities – Certain measures affecting poultry meat and poultry 
meat products from the United States...................................................................................16  
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by the United States .................................................16  
6. European Communities – Definitive anti -dumping measures on certain iron or 
steel fasteners from China..................................................................................................... .16 
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by China ...................................................................16  
7. Adoption of the 2009 draft Annual Report of the DSB .......................................................17  
8. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the United States and the 
European Commission regarding the importation of high-quality beef and the dispute:  "EC – Measures Concerning Me at and Meat Products (Hormones)"...............18
 
(a) Statement by  Australia ......................................................................................................... .....18  
(b) Statement by New Zealand ....................................................................................................... 18 
(c) Statement by Argentina......................................................................................................... ....18  
(d) Statement by Uruguay........................................................................................................... ....18  
(e) Statement by  Brazil............................................................................................................ .......18  
 
 
 Prior to the adoption of the Agenda , the representative of Mexico  said that his delegation 
wished to request that a corrigendum be added under item 4 of the Agenda, which had been circulated 
on 13 October in document WT/DS386/7/Corr.1.  The Chairman  proposed that, as requested by 
Mexico, document WT/DS386/7/Corr.1 be added to the Agenda under item 4. 
 
 The DSB so agreed .  
  Also prior to the adoption of the Agenda
, the representative of Australia  said that her 
delegation wished to place an item under "Other  Business" concerning the Memorandum of 
Understanding (MOU), which had been notified jointly by the EC and the United States to the DSB, 
on 25 September 2009, and had been circulated on,  30 September 2009, to all Members.  The MOU 
concerned the EC - Beef Hormones dispute. 
  The representative of New Zealand
 said that her delegation had no item to add to the Agenda, 
but would appreciate the opportunity to make an intervention under the item that Australia had 
proposed to raise under "Other Business". 
 
 The representative of Argentina  said that, like New Zealand, his delegation also would wish 
to make a brief statement regarding the item requested by Australia under "Other Business". 
  The representative of Uruguay
 said that his country also wished to make a statement 
regarding this matter.  
  WT/DSB/M/275 
 Page 3 
 
 
   The representative of Brazil  said that his country would also wish to make a short statement 
regarding the matter raised by Australia.   The representative of the United States
 said that his delegation had some concern with the 
number of delegations that intended to make a statement under Australia's proposed item.  Under 
Rule 25 of the DSB rules of procedure under "Other Business", the DSB shall limit itself to taking 
note of "the announcement by the sponsoring de legation", as well as "any reactions to such an 
announcement by other delegations directly concerned" .  In this instance the only delegations directly 
concerned would seem to be the United States and th e EC.  Furthermore, since other delegations had 
already announced that they intend ed to make a statement, it was not clear how those statements could 
be a reaction to Australia's statement.  The United States, therefore, requested that the meeting be 
suspended briefly to permit delegations to confer on how to proceed.   The DSB agreed
 to suspend the meeting. 
 
 Following the resumption of the meeting, the Chairman  said that for the benefit of other 
Members, he wished to state that it had been decided that each of the delegations (Australia, 
New Zealand, Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil) would put this matter under "Other Business", and they 
would speak first.  Subsequently, the United States and the EC would react to those statements.   
  The DSB took note
 of the statements and adopted  the Agenda, as amended. 
 
 
1. Surveillance of implementation of recommendations adopted by the DSB 
(a) United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropr iations Act of 1998:  Status report by the 
United States (WT/DS176/11/Add.83) 
 
(b) United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan:  
Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.83) 
 (c) United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act:  Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/Add.58) 
 
(d) European Communities – Measures affecting th e approval and marketing of biotech products:  
Status report by the European Communities (WT/DS291/37/Add.21 – WT/DS293/31/Add.21) 
 (e) European Communities – Regime for the importation, sale and distribution of bananas:  
Second recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Ecuador:  Status report by the European 
Communities (WT/DS27/96/Add.9) 
 (f) United States – Laws, re gulations and methodology fo r calculating dumping margins 
("zeroing"):  Status report by the United States (WT/DS294/34/Add.2) 
 
(g) United States – Measures relating to zeroing and sunset reviews:  Status report by the 
United States (WT/DS322/36/Add.1) 
 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 establishment of the reasonable 
period of time and shall remain on the DSB's Agenda  until the issue was resolved.  He proposed that 
the seven sub-items under Agenda item 1 be considered separately. WT/DSB/M/275 
Page 4  
 
  (a) United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropria tions Act of 1998:  Status report by the 
United States (WT/DS176/11/Add.83) 
2. The Chairman
 drew attention to document WT/DS176/ 11/Add.83, 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 12 October 2009, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  As noted in that status report, a number of legislative proposals that would implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute had been introduced in th e current Congress, which convened in January 2009.  
The US administration was working with Congr ess to implement the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings. 
4. The representative of the European Communities
 said that, at the present meeting, the 
United States was presenting its eighty-third status re port in this dispute.  The EC hoped that the new 
US authorities would take steps to finally impl ement the DSB's ruling and resolve this matter. 
5. The representative of Cuba  said that, once again, his country regretted the lack of compliance 
in this dispute.  The United States ignored the fi ndings contained in the A ppellate Body Report, which 
had been circulated in 2002.  Month after month,  the United States provided the same status report 
which contained reference to "adequa te legislative measures" that woul d solve this matter and that the 
US administration would work with the US Congress.   On several occasions, Cuba had requested the 
United States to provide details regarding those measures, but had received no response.  The US 
written and oral reports pertaining to the S ection 211 dispute had shown no progress in the 
implementation of the recommendati ons, which was in violation of Article 21.6 of the DSU.  He 
recalled that Section 211 had come into force in October 1998, preventing the registration and 
renewal of certain Cuban trademarks .  In terms of intellectual property rights, this was clear evidence 
of the economic, trade and financial blockade, wh ich the United States had been imposing on Cuba 
since 1962.  The assault on the registration of well-known Cuban trademarks like HAVANA CLUB 
had serious trade implications.  The power of tr ademarks, the only intellectual property assets that 
could remain in force indefinitely, was comm on knowledge.  He noted that HAVANA CLUB was a 
brand of Cuban rum, which was sold every year  in increasing quantities and was marketed in 124 
countries.  That brand of Cuban rum had been usur ped in the United States by the Bacardi company.  
In allowing Bacardi to sell rum under the HAVANA CLUB trademark, the US authorities promoted 
the most unfair international trade practices.  In its 2002 Report, the Appellate Body had noted that 
Section 211 violated two core principles of the mul tilateral trading system:  i.e. the most-favoured-
nation principle and the principle of national treatment.  The purpose of the pretexts used to postpone implementation of the ruling in this dispute was to tu rn it into dead letter.  Section 211 continued to 
violate the TRIPS Agreement and other obligations.  Both the complainant and the respondent in this 
dispute were aware of the significance of not complying with the rulings.  The Understanding 
between the EC and the United States, of which Cuba  had become aware in July 2005, demonstrated 
the lack of action and indifference in the face of a situation of non-compliance with fundamental 
principles.  The parties demonstrated a blatant lack of  will to settle this dispute.  It was important to 
emphasize that the settlement of disputes had an impact on the effective functioning of the WTO and the maintenance of a proper balance between the rights and obligations of Members.  The EC had 
recently assured that it was "committed to improve the international legal framework for intellectual 
property protection".  Therefore, Cuba urged the EC to follow up on that statement and to take 
immediate action to resolve this dispute, whic h undermined the most co mprehensive multilateral 
agreement on intellectual property signed to date.   WT/DSB/M/275 
 Page 5 
 
 
  6. The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  said that his country noted the US 
status report and emphasized the need to end the economic, commercial and fi nancial blockade that 
the United States had imposed on Cuba, including  the application of what was known as the 
Helms-Burton Act.  The entire world had rejected the blockade against Cuba, as had recently been 
noted on more than one occasion at discussions held at the United Nations.  In the same vein, the 
Organization of American States (OAS) had recently repealed the decision to expel Cuba, which had 
been adopted on 31 January 1962 by the Eighth Mee ting of Consultation of Ministers of Foreign 
Affairs of the OAS.  He recalled that the decision to exclude Cuba had been taken at the height of the 
Cold War, when the OAS complied with mandates dictated by a single member – a time that 
fortunately appeared to belong to the past.  Rece nt summits of Heads of State and Government, for 
example those of Latin America and the Caribbean  in December 2008 and South America and Africa 
in September 2009, had adopted declarations and ha d stated their rejection of the blockade against 
Cuba.  There had to be a link between requirement s and compliance, a principle that governed any 
rule or right, which in turn always entailed duti es.  The United States was one of the countries that 
made many demands in the WTO.  This, theref ore, implied responsibility for the conduct it must 
adopt in the WTO.  Venezuela recalled that tho se who had the greatest interest in seeing compliance 
with the rules and decisions by the WTO bodies we re small and developing countries, which lacked 
the economic, political and ultimately inordinate powers to impose their positions.  The DSB was 
among those WTO bodies that had earned the highest praise in the WTO.  At the most recent meeting of the General Council, one dele gation had raised the systemic problem of the WTO's loss of 
credibility as a result of repeated failure on the part of two of the key WTO players to comply with the 
DSB's decisions, and underscored the need to remedy the situation.  It was not a matter of complying 
with one decision or another, or of stating that the WTO's credibility remained intact on account of the number of cases that continued to be brought before  it.  The latter was devoid of purpose because the 
agreement was to comply with all recommendations , and this was the reason why rules were laid 
down.  Venezuela, therefore, urged the United St ates to take steps, as a matter of urgency and 
necessity, to comply with the obligations incumben t on it under the TRIPS Agreement and to provide 
clear and concrete evidence of its cred ibility and respect for multilateral trade. 
7. The representative of Ecuador
 said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report, which unfortunately demonstrated little progress on compliance.  Ecuador supported the 
statement made by Cuba, and recalled that Artic le 21 of the DSU referred explicitly to prompt 
compliance with the DSB's rulings and recommendati ons, in particular with regard to matters 
affecting the interests of developing countries.  The United States closely monitored compliance of 
other Members with their WTO obligations and had expressed, in different WTO Councils and 
Committees, its systemic concerns about commitmen ts undertaken by them, and had reported on their 
compliance records in the area of intellectual prope rty.  Therefore, if the United States wished to 
promote compliance, it had to lead by example.  Ecuador, once again, urged the US administration 
and Congress to accelerate their compliance with the DSB's rulings and recommendations by 
repealing Section 211.  Ecuador requested more de tailed information from th e EC on the steps that 
had been taken to resolve this dispute.  
8. The representative of Viet Nam  said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report.  Viet Nam was concerned about the lack  of implementation of the DSB's rulings and 
recommendations in this dispute and urged the Unite d States to comply with its obligations without 
delay. 
9. The representative of India  said that her country thanked the United States for its status report 
and its statement.  India noted that there was no subs tantive change in the situ ation and felt compelled, 
yet again, to stress that the principle of prompt  compliance was missing in this dispute.  India, 
therefore, reiterated its systemic concerns about the situation of non-compliance by Members, which 
undermined the credibility and confidence that Members placed on the WTO dispute settlement 
system.  India urged the United States to fully impl ement the DSB's recommendations in this dispute.  WT/DSB/M/275 
Page 6  
 
  10. The representative of Chile
 said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report.  Chile considered that the general level of compliance under the dispute settlement mechanism 
was good, but remained concerned about the failure to resolve this long-standing  dispute.  Chile urged 
the parties, once again, to take the necessary meas ures as soon as possible to fully comply with the 
DSB's rulings and recommendations.  
11. The representative of Brazil  said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report, but remained concerned by the US lack of compliance with the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings.  In this connection, Brazil urged the Unit ed States to expedite its efforts and bring its 
measures into conformity with its multilateral obligations. 
12. The representative of Argentina  said that his country thanked the United States for its latest 
status report, and recalled the statement made by Argentina at the September DSB meeting.  
Argentina reiterated that the failure to implemen t the DSB's recommendations and rulings undermined 
the system and called on the parties, especially th e United States, to take the necessary measures to 
ensure the full implementation in this case. 
13. The representative of Nicaragua  said that her country noted the eighty-third status report 
presented by the United States.  Like on previous o ccasions, Nicaragua drew attention to the fact that 
this was practically the same report as the one submitted by the United States in the past.  
Furthermore, the US status report did not refer to any specific measures to be implemented.  
Nicaragua noted, with concern, the US statemen t contained in the status report that the US 
administration would work with the US Congress, and requested clarification from the United States on this matter.  Section 211 had been found in viol ation of the TRIPS Agreement in relation to the 
rights of trade-mark holders.  It was unacceptable th at intellectual property violations persisted in 
countries for political reasons.  There was a need to ensure that the multilateral trading principles were 
respected.  Nicaragua regretted, once again, that there had been no progress and that the failure to 
comply continued.  Furthermore, there was nothing to suggest that prompt compliance would take place.  Nicaragua, therefore, urged the United Stat es to inform the DSB as to  when it would fully 
comply with the recommendations. 
14. The representative of Angola
 said that his country thanked the United States for its status 
report.  Angola fully supported the statement ma de by Cuba and requested the United States to 
accelerate its implementation process so as to bring its legislation in line with its obligations under the 
TRIPS Agreement. 
15. The representative of China  said that his country thanked the United States for its status report 
and its statement.  Since the status report did not contain anything new, and non-compliance still 
persisted, China supported the statements made by the EC and Cuba and, once again, urged the 
United States to respect its international obligations and to implement the DSB's decisions without 
further delay. 
16. 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.83) 
17. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS184/ 15/Add.83, 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.  WT/DSB/M/275 
 Page 7 
 
 
  18. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report on 
this dispute on 12 October 2009, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  As of 
23 November 2002, the US authorities had addresse d the DSB's recommendations and rulings with 
respect to the calculation of anti-dumping margins in the hot-rolled steel anti-dumping duty investigation at issue in this dispute.  Details were provided in document WT/DS184/15/Add.3.  With 
respect to the recommendations and rulings of the DS B that had not already been addressed by the US 
authorities by 23 November 2002, the US administration would work with the US Congress with respect to appropriate statutory measures that would resolve this matter. 
19. The representative of Japan
 said that her country thanked the United States for its statement 
and its latest status report.  Japan noted the US statement 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 on tangible progress for the remaining 
part of the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  A 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".3  Japan called on the 
United States to fully implement the DSB recommendations in this long-standing dispute without 
further delay. 
20. 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.58) 
21. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS160/ 24/Add.58, 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. 
22. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 12 October 2009, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  The US administration 
would continue to confer with the EC, and to work  closely with the US Congress, in order to reach a 
mutually satisfactory resolution of this matter. 
23. The representative of the European Communities  said that the United States had again 
reported non-compliance.  The EC was again disappo inted, especially in light of the importance the 
US attached to intellectual property protection.  Members were aware that the United States was in 
favour of strong intellectual property protection th roughout the world, and thus hoped that it would 
lead by example.  The EC nevertheless remained ready to work with the US authorities towards the 
complete resolution of this case, and hoped that th e financial loss suffered by the EC industry could 
be brought to an end soon. 
24. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
                                                      
3 Article 3.3 of the DSU. WT/DSB/M/275 
Page 8  
 
  (d) European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products:  
Status report by the European Communities (WT/DS291/37/Add.21 – WT/DS293/31/Add.21) 
25. The Chairman
 drew attention to document WT/D S291/37/Add.21 – WT/DS293/31/Add.21, 
which contained the status report by the EC on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in the case concerning the EC's measures affecting the approval and marketing of 
biotech products. 
26. The representative of the European Communities
 said that EC regulatory procedures on 
biotech products continued to work as foreseen in the legislation.  A vote on draft authorization 
decisions for four GM maize events had taken place on 19 October 2009.  The Commission was now in the position to authorize three of those events and would do so the following month.  This would 
raise to the number of GMOs authorized since the date of establishment of the Panel to twenty-four. 
27. The representative of Argentina
 said that his country, once agai n, welcomed the EC's status 
report.  Argentina continued to monitor the situa tion regarding the prohibitions in the EC member 
States, and urged the EC to move ah ead with the events-approval process. 
28. The representative of the United States  said that his country thanked the EC for its status 
report and its statement.  The United States recalled its discussion at the September 2009 DSB 
meeting regarding delays that were endemic in the EC system even after the EC's scientific authority 
had completed an extensive and time-consuming safety assessment.  The United States also recalled that, at the September 2009 DSB meeting, the EC  had asserted that its regulatory procedures for 
biotech products continued to work as foreseen and had noted that certain maize events would be 
subject to a vote on 19 October 2009.  The EC had commented on that vote in its statement at the 
present meeting.  On 19 October 2009, EC bodies consisting of member State representatives had 
considered four of the more than 35 outstanding a pplications for approval of different biotech maize 
varieties.  The EC's scientific authority had i ssued favourable opinions for each of these four maize 
applications.  The preparation of the scientific  opinions had taken as long as 46 months, and during 
the risk assessment process, the EC scientific authority had considered and addressed exhaustive 
comments provided by member States.  After issuance of the favourable opinions, the EC 
Commission – albeit with questionable delays – had proceeded to draft approval measures for each of 
the four maize varieties.  One would expect that the next step would be four approvals, in accordance with the four opinions and the Commission's propo sed approval measures – particularly since the 
member States had participated in the preparati on of the scientific opinions.  But when the four 
applications had been submitted to the EC bodies on 19 October, not one of the applications had 
received the necessary number of member State votes for approval.  Instead, those applications would 
experience yet further delay.  The member State voting procedure was non-transparent.  The EC did 
not provide the applicant, the public, or other WTO Members with information on why any particular member State had declined to vo te in accordance with the scientif ic opinion.  Indeed, even the 
positions taken by each of the member States was not set out in any Commission publication.  The 
United States understood, however, that some of the EC member States with the largest populations, 
and thus with the greatest number of votes, consiste ntly failed to vote in acco rdance with the scientific 
opinions.  And, as noted, the consistent failure  of the EC bodies to adopt the proposed approval 
measures based on the favourable scientific opinions r esulted in additional delays.  This was a matter 
of great concern to the United States.  The SPS Ag reement provided that approval procedures must be 
undertaken and completed without undue delay.  The United States recalled that the DSB had found 
the EC to be in breach of this obligation.  Vo tes such as the ones that had taken place on 19 October 
did nothing to assuage US concerns.  The United States thanked the DSB for its attention to this matter.  WT/DSB/M/275 
 Page 9 
 
 
  29. The representative of th e European Communities  said that, in any event, the GMO regulatory 
regime was working normally.  Its functioning should not be rigidly assessed purely quantitatively 
and in abstract, in terms of number of authorizatio ns per year, since this was dependent on various 
product and case specific elements, and in particular  on the quality of applications and on the time 
needed by applicants to answer requests from EF SA on additional scientific information.  It was 
worth noting that these applications were not covered by the Panel's recommendations.  The 
Commission, as risk manager, could decide not to  proceed with the authorization of a GMO while 
scientific doubts on its safe use remained.  This was consistent with the EC commitments under the 
SPS Agreement.  According to, inter alia , the express terms of Articles 2.2, 3.3, 5.3 and Annex A, 
paragraph 5 of the SPS Agreement, the EC could set  its own acceptable level of protection (ALOP), 
and reserved the right to temporarily refrain from authorizing a GMO event in circumstances where it 
had not yet been established, on the basis of the av ailable science and/or other pertinent information, 
that the risk was zero or merely theoretical.   
30. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(e) European Communities – Regime for the importation, sale and distribution of bananas:  
Second recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Ecuador:  Status report by the European Communities (WT/DS27/96/Add.9) 
31. The Chairman
 drew attention to document WT/DS27/ 96/Add.9, which contained the status 
report by the EC on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings in the case concerning the EC's regime for the importation, sale and distribution of bananas. 
32. The representative of the European Communities
 said that, as had been indicated at previous 
meetings, the EC stood ready to implement the Pa nel's recommendation by means of modifying its 
bound duty.  The EC still hoped that that rebinding c ould be made in the context of a comprehensive 
agreement with Latin American s uppliers, an agreement that had b een sought since the EC initiated 
GATT Article XXVIII negotiations back in 2004.  Th e EC was fully committed to finding very soon a 
final solution to this long-standing "banana saga".  As  indicated in its status report, the EC was fully 
engaged in negotiations with all Latin American supplying countries with the view of concluding 
promptly such a comprehensive agreement.  The EC  hoped that those negotiations could soon lead to 
a satisfactory agreement for all suppliers. 
33. The representative of Ecuador  said that his country thanked the EC for its status report.  
However, once again, the EC did not provide any indi cation as to when it expected to comply with the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings in this disput e.  The EC had proposed to the MFN banana 
suppliers an agreement subject to numerous conditi ons that had gone beyond the Bananas dispute and 
made more difficult to achieve any understanding on  this matter.  However, Ecuador remained open 
to negotiating a solution in the context of the WTO.   
34. The representative of Nicaragua  said that, in its status report, the EC had, once again, 
expressed its interest in making "definitive progress towards a satisfactory agreement" but had, once 
again, failed to mention exactly how and when it pl anned to put an end to its tariff binding violation 
and to the discrimination that it persistently exerci sed.  As regards the EC's continued tariff binding 
violation, Nicaragua did not see how, with a proposal  to reduce its tariff by 2020 or later to rates 
which may or may not be bound, the EC could claim that it was complying promptly with Article II of 
the GATT 1994.  The rebound tariff should have been included in the EC's Schedule and should have 
been in force since 2006.  Any new EC's Schedul e must reflect a rebound tariff that would fully 
restore Latin America's customs duties on bananas.   Regarding its persis tent discrimination, 
Nicaragua noted that the EC had decided to opt for silence, which was un likely to resolve this 
long-standing dispute.  As Nicaragua had pointed out  previously, the ACP countries, many of which WT/DSB/M/275 
Page 10  
 
  were economically better off than Nicaragua, enjo yed zero tariff for unlimited volumes, while with a 
tariff of close to US$5/crate, Nicaragua was effectively excluded from the market.  Nicaragua called on the EC, once again, to end its unjustified discrimination and bring itself into compliance with the WTO.  After 13 rulings against the EC, Nicaragua , a developing country and its Latin American 
neighbours, as well as the entire WTO Membership, exp ected that the EC would fully comply with its 
obligations without further delay.  Nicaragua would continue to defe nd its interests in this dispute 
until the EC ended its discrimina tion and gave the Nicaraguan producers a fair chance to overcome 
their poverty through trade. 
35. The representative of Colombia
 said that his country thanked the EC for its status report.  For 
the ninth time since January, the EC had repeated its intention to bring itself in conformity with the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings by modifying its  scheduled tariff commitments on bananas.  
Colombia had participated in the discussions held with the EC with a view to reaching an agreement 
on bananas which, among other things, would estab lish a new bound tariff level for bananas which 
was an important product for Colombia's econo my.  Colombia hoped that, as a result of those 
negotiations, it would be possible to  reach a balanced agreement.  However, this would require the 
full commitment on the part of the EC.  Like the EC, Colombia hoped that it would soon be possible 
to put an end to this long-standing dispute.  Colo mbia was confident that the EC would live up to its 
obligation under the DSU to give sp ecial attention to this issue that  was affecting the interests of 
developing countries such as Colombia. 
36. The representative the Dominican Republic , speaking also on behalf of the ACP countries, 
said that ever since this item had been on the DSB' s Agenda, the ACP countries had stated that they 
respected final decisions, even though they conti nued to disagree with some of the conclusions 
reached by the Panel and the Appellate Body in this  dispute.  The ACP countries believed that it was 
necessary to bear in mind the thrust of the rulings.  Both the Panel and the Appellate Body had agreed 
that the EC's Schedule, at this time, still committe d the EC to a tariff-rate quota at a tariff of €75/mt 
and an out-of-quota tariff of €680/mt.  As previ ously stated, the ACP countries could resign 
themselves to live with a literal implementation of those conclusions.  The EC had, however, 
indicated that it wished to achieve compliance, a nd thereby implementation, by changing the structure 
of its tariff commitments through negotiations with the MFN banana suppliers.  The result of that 
process would likely be an overall re duction of bound and applied duti es on bananas.  As on previous 
occasions, the ACP countries recalled that the DSB's recommendations in this dispute did not require 
an overall reduction of average tariffs;  all they  required was either a literal implementation or a 
rearrangement.  This meant that a decision to redu ce the EC's average banana tariffs did not find its 
rationale in the need for compliance in this dispute;   it would have to find th is rationale in another 
context, namely the DDA negotiations.  This should be kept in mind when designing a solution.  Any 
possible solution should be based on the right reas oning and anchored and balanced out in the right 
context.  With this in mind, the ACP countries rema ined committed to supporting their partners on the 
way towards an effective and hopefully final solution to the "banana issue". 
37. The representative of Panama  said that his delegation wished to refer to the statements made 
by Colombia at previous DSB meetings regarding th is matter.  Like other Latin American countries, 
Panama was committed to finding a solution to this dispute;  a lasting solution that would take into account the interests of Latin American producers.  Any such solution must protect Latin American 
countries' access and legal rights as well as interests.  Before complying with its obligations, the EC 
was demanding that Latin American producers accept certain preconditions.  However, that approach 
had complicated matters.  For example, the EC wo uld be ready to settle the dispute only if Latin 
American countries accepted to settle various other matte rs that were unrelated to the bananas case.  
The EC was demanding that Latin American countries forego certain rights that were provided under 
the DSU, and was asking for unlimited authority to be able to revert to non-tariff restrictions and to 
cancel the agreement should other Members expres s concerns.  Those conditions went beyond the 
framework of the DSU and the Bananas dispute a nd undermined efforts to ensure compliance.   WT/DSB/M/275 
 Page 11 
 
 
  Panama was ready to support a mutually agreed solution, provided it allowed for compliance by the 
EC with its obligations under the covered agreem ents.  Once again, Panama called upon the EC to 
settle the dispute on that basis. 
38. The representative of Honduras  said that, as a complainant in the Bananas III dispute, his 
country remained concerned about the EC's conti nuing non-compliance.  The EC's proposed solution 
would not commit the EC to maintaining a banana import regime in compliance with the rulings and 
recommendations of the Bananas III dispute.  In fact, under its proposed approach, the EC would make no changes at all to its violations unless H onduras and other parties relinquished all their rights 
under the Bananas III dispute, all claims under Artic le XXVIII and Article XXIV regarding the EC's 
enlargements as well as Doha rights on bananas a nd tropical products.  The EC would make no 
change if other Members raised their objections.  However, this approach a ppeared to be aimed at 
avoiding compliance.  As had previously been st ated, Honduras was seeking an outcome that would 
secure the Bananas III findings, reserve its rights in that proceeding, and restore its legitimate trading 
interests.  Honduras hoped to achieve that outcome without further delay.   
39. The representative of the United States
 said that his country thanked the EC for its status 
report and its statement.  The reasonable period of time for compliance in this dispute had expired 
more than ten years ago, on 1 January 1999.  While the United States noted the EC's efforts to reach 
agreement with interested parties to resolve the dispute, it also no ted that the commercial impact of 
the EC's non-compliance over this very long peri od was undeniably large and damaging to a number 
of WTO Members.  The United States called on the EC to resolve this dispute, and until then, 
renewed its request to the EC to provide a stat us report with respect to the US dispute. 
40. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(f) United States – Laws, regul ations and methodology for calculating dumping margins 
("zeroing"):  Status report by the United States (WT/DS294/34/Add.2) 
41. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS294/ 34/Add.2, 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 laws, regulations and me thodology for calculating dumping margins. 
42. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 12 October 2009, in accordance with Ar ticle 21.6 of the DSU.  As noted in that status 
report, the United States had already taken a number of steps to implement the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in this dispute.  With  regard to the remaining issues, including those 
identified in the DSB's recommendations and ruling s, the United States would continue to consult 
with interested parties. 
43. The representative of the European Communities  said that this was the third status report in 
this dispute.  As was the case with the two precedin g reports, the US status report confirmed that the 
United States had not taken any action to correct th e shortcomings in its implementation which, the 
EC recalled, was due on 9 April 2007.  The EC wa s already well aware that the United States had 
taken some action in February 2007 to cease zeroing in weighted-average-to-average comparisons in 
original investigations.  The EC welcomed this lim ited step, but, as the Panel and the Appellate Body 
Reports in this dispute had confirmed, this was not  enough.  The real problem was the use of zeroing 
in reviews, both administrative reviews (on the basis of which a large percentage of anti-dumping 
duties paid were collected) and sunset reviews, where "zeroed" margins of dumping were used to 
justify the continuation of duties.  This lack of ac tion on the part of the Unite d States regretfully spoke 
for itself on the US position on zeroing.  But th e fact that the EC was addressing the lack of 
implementation in this dispute at the present mee ting and the new disputes, which continued to be WT/DSB/M/275 
Page 12  
 
  brought against US zeroing by WTO Members (dev eloped and developing), should also send a clear 
message as to the position and intentions of other WT O Members with respect to US zeroing.  All the 
relevant arguments had been aired before the WT O Appellate Body, which had pronounced itself on 
the question of zeroing on numerous occasions, including this dispute (DS294), EC - Zeroing II (DS350), and most recently in the Japan - Zeroing dispute (DS322).  In those rulings, the Appellate 
Body had made the legal situation crystal clea r.  Zeroing was prohibited in both original 
investigations and reviews.  In addition, any anti-dumping duties collected after the end of the 
implementation period must be calculated without  zeroing, whenever the goods in question were 
imported or the review determinati on made.  The EC noted, once again, that the status report did not 
refer to involving Congress in ending zeroing in admi nistrative reviews.  This confirmed the EC's 
view that such implementation was subject to the discretion of the US administration and could be 
accomplished by administrative action.  The only step left for the United States to take was to bring 
itself into full compliance without further delay. 
44. The representative of the United States
 said that, as had previously been stated, his country 
was consulting with interested parties in order to ad dress the findings in this dispute.  Furthermore, 
the United States recognized the difficulties raised by the Appellate Body findings on zeroing and was 
consulting within the government and with interested  stakeholders to find an appropriate solution.  
With respect to the DSB's recommendations and ruli ngs in other disputes, the United States had in 
each case expressed its intent to comply with its  obligations under the WTO Agreement.  The 
United States would address the recommendations and rulings in those disputes in the DSB at the appropriate time. 
45. The DSB took note
 of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(g) United States – Measures relating to zeroing and sunset reviews:  Status report by the 
United States (WT/DS322/36/Add.1) 
46. Finally, the Chairman  drew attention to document WT/D S322/36/Add.1, 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. 
47. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report on 
this dispute, on 12 October 2009, in accordance with Ar ticle 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. 
48. The representative of Japan  said that her country thanked the United States for its statement 
and its latest status report.  Japan regarded the i ssuance of the status reports as the US recognition that 
the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this disput e had not been implemented.  Japan also noted 
the US statement that it "will continue to consult with interested parties in order to address the 
findings contained in the reports of  the Appellate Body and the panel".  However, Japan had recently 
learned that the United States had begun to liquidate the entries covered by one of the administrative 
reviews at issue, so-called Review 4, at the inflated anti-dumping duty rate calculated by using 
zeroing.  Japan had estimated that the excess duties to  be collected as a result of these liquidations 
would amount to several million US dollars.  Japan  recalled that, on 31 August 2009, the DSB had 
adopted the Reports of the Panel and the Appellate Body in which Review 4 had been found to be 
inconsistent with Articles 2.4 and 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI:2 of the 
GATT 1994 and was further recommended to be brought into conformity with the WTO obligations.  
Given the US commitment to address those findings a nd its clear duty to comply with its obligations, 
Japan was puzzled and dismayed by the US latest ac tion to enforce this measure.  Japan requested the  WT/DSB/M/275 
 Page 13 
 
 
  United States to provide a full explanation for this action.  Finally, Japan called on the United States 
to take immediate and concrete action to fully co mply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings in 
order to resolve this dispute. 
49. The representative of the European Communities  said that his delegation did not wish to 
repeat all that had already been stated under the prev ious Agenda item.  The EC did, however, wish to 
reiterate its disappointment over the lack of any progress by the United States towards compliance 
with adverse rulings on zeroing in yet another disp ute.  The EC recalled that immediate compliance 
with the DSB's recommendations an d rulings was not an option, but an obligation under the DSU 
provisions.  
50. The representative of the United States  said that his country noted Japan's inquiry regarding 
the liquidation of duties for entries covered by one of the administrative reviews at issue in this 
dispute, and would refer that back to capital. 
51. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
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 Communities and Japan 
52. The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
the European Communities and Japan.  He then invited the respective representatives to speak. 
53. The representative of Japan  said that preparatory work for a new round of distributions under 
the CDSOA appeared to be well underway.4  Thus the CDSOA still remained operational.5  Japan, 
once again, called on the United States to stop illegal distributions and repeal the CDSOA, not just in 
form but in substance, so as to resolve this disput e once and for all.  According to Article 21.6 of the 
DSU, the United States was under obligation to provid e the DSB with a status report in this dispute 
"until the issue is resolved".  Jap an reserved all its rights under the DSU until the United States came 
into full compliance. 
54. The representative of the European Communities  said that, as in many previous meetings, his 
delegation wished to ask the United States when it wo uld effectively stop the transfer of anti-dumping 
and countervailing duties to its industry and finally put an end to the condemned measure.  The EC 
also 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 in this dispute. 
55. The representative of Brazil  said that his country thanked the EC and Japan for keeping this 
item on the DSB's Agenda.  It was clear that the si tuation of non-compliance in this dispute would 
persist until the United States ceased all disburseme nts made pursuant to the Byrd Amendment.  
Before that, the issue would not have been "resolv ed" within the meaning of Article 21.6 of the DSU 
and, therefore, Brazil urged the United States to resume  the regular submission of status reports in this 
dispute.  
                                                      
4 On 3 September 2009, the US Customs and Border Protection published the list of certifications 
received from claimants for the FY2009  distributions.  See US Customs an d Border Protection's website at: 
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/trade/prior ity_trade/add_cvd/cont_dump/cdsoa_09/  
5 In the words of the US Customs, "the distribution process will continue for an undetermined period".  
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/275 
Page 14  
 
  56. The representative of Canada
 said that her country agreed with the EC and Japan that the 
Byrd Amendment remained subject  to the surveillance of the DS B until the United States ceased to 
administer it. 
57. The representative of Thailand  said that her country thanked the EC and Japan for bringing 
this item before the DSB once more.  Thailand renewed its call on the United States to cease its 
disbursements under the Continued Dumping and S ubsidy Offset Act, to repeal the Act with 
immediate practical effect, and to resume providing  status reports until such actions were taken and 
this matter was fully and finally resolved. 
58. The representative of China  said that his country thanked the EC and Japan for, once again, 
raising this item at the DSB meeting.  China shar ed the concerns expressed by previous speakers and 
joined them in urging the United States to comply fully with the DSB's rulings. 
59. The representative of India  said that her country thanked th e EC and Japan for, once again, 
bringing this issue before the DS B.  India shared the concerns expressed by them.  India remained 
disappointed at the US maintenance of the WTO-in consistent disbursements.  As mentioned by 
previous speakers, the CDSOA remained fully ope rational and allowed for disbursements by the US 
administration to its domestic industry.  WTO Me mbers continued to be concerned about this 
situation.  As had previously been reiterated, India was concerned that non-compliance by Members 
led to a growing lack of credibility of the WTO dis pute settlement system.  India agreed with the EC 
and Japan that the Byrd Amendment remained su bject to the surveillance of the DSB until the 
United States ceased to administer it. 
60. 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.  The United States furt her recalled that Member s had acknowledged, during 
previous DSB meetings, that the 2006 Deficit Reduc tion Act did not permit the distribution of duties 
collected on goods entered after 1 October 2007.  With respect to comments regarding further status 
reports in this matter, as had already been explai ned at previous DSB meetings, the United States 
failed to see what purpose would be served by fu rther submission of status reports repeating the 
progress the United States had made in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  
61. The DSB took note
 of the statements. 
3. United States – Certain country of origin labelling (COOL) requirements  
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by Canada (WT/DS384/8) 
4. United States – Certain country of origin labelling requirements 
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by Mexico (WT/DS386/7 and Corr.1) 
62. The Chairman  proposed that items 3 and 4 be considered  together since they pertained to the 
same matter.  He first drew attention to th e communication from Canada contained in document 
WT/DS384/8 and invited the representative of Canada to speak. 
63. The representative of Canada  said that the United States had implemented a mandatory 
Country of Origin Labelling measure (COOL) that imposed additional and unnecessary costs on Canadian beef and pork exporters as a result of the need to segregate animals prior to slaughter and  WT/DSB/M/275 
 Page 15 
 
 
  the onerous record keeping requirements imposed.  The fact that, in a few moments, Mexico would 
make a similar statement was testament to the ser ious negative impact this measure was having on 
established North American trading patterns.  COOL was discouraging US retailers, processors, 
feedlots and producers from buying Canadian liv estock and meat and the negative impact on 
Canadian beef, pork and cattle expor ters had been significant.  Those requirements were so onerous 
that they affected the ability of Canadian cattle and hog exporters to compete with US producers.  
That was why Canada had no choice but to pursue di spute settlement.  The United States and Canada 
were each other's largest agricultural trading partners .  In 2008, bilateral agricultural trade had totalled 
approximately US$37 billion.  Reducing obstacles to  trade had contributed to mutually beneficial 
supply chains, making both countries more competitive domestically, and internationally.  Requesting 
the establishment of a dispute settlement panel was th e latest step in Canada's lengthy engagement 
with the United States.  Since 2002, when th e COOL measure was first proposed, Canada had 
consistently raised its concerns with regard to its impact, not only on the Canadian livestock and meat 
industries, but also on its highly integrated North American supply chains.  This had been through 
letters, meetings between government officials a nd at meetings of the WTO Committee on Technical 
Barriers to Trade.  In addition, Canada's Minister  of International Trade and Canada's Minister of 
Agriculture and Agri-Food had raised concerns with  their US counterparts regarding the consistency 
of the measure with the international trade obligatio ns of the United States.  Canada was disappointed 
that, despite those significant efforts on its part, the United States had persevered with this trade-
distorting measure.  As outlined in its 7 October 2009 letter to the DSB, Canada considered that the 
US COOL measure was inconsistent with the WTO obligations of the United States, including under 
the TBT Agreement, the GATT 1994 and the Agreem ent on Rules of Origin.  Canada had held 
consultations with the United States on this measure  in December 2008 and again in June 2009.  
Regrettably the consultations had not led to a resolu tion.  Consequently, Canada requested that a panel 
be established with standard terms of  reference to examine this matter. 
64. The Chairman  then drew attention to the communication from Mexico contained in document 
WT/DS386/7 and Corr.1 and invited the representative of Mexico to speak. 
65. The representative of Mexico  said that his country had listened carefully to the statement 
made by Canada.  Like Canada, Mexico had held consultations w ith the United States on 27 February 
and 5 June 2009 in order to reach a solution rega rding the negative impact of the US measures 
concerning country of origin labelling on a number of  agricultural products, including cuts of beef 
obtained from livestock originating in Mexico.  However, since Mexico was not successful in finding 
a solution to its concerns, it was compelled to requ est the establishment of a panel with a view to 
resolving this dispute.  He said that Mexico's requ est was prompted by the negative impact of the US 
measures on Mexico's calf exports to the United Stat es.  This new regulation w as inconsistent with the 
international rules for the determination of produc t origin and generated costs for the segregation of 
livestock, which were transferred to Mexican e xporters whose livestock prices were significantly 
reduced on the grounds that the reduction was nec essary to cover the costs of implementing the 
COOL measures.  Moreover, as a result of these me asures, some US processors either processed 
Mexican livestock only in plants located close to the border and on specific days of the week, leading 
to a concentration of outlets and affecting Me xican exporters, or processed solely livestock 
originating in the United States, since this made  it easier for them to comply with the labelling 
requirements.  Although Mexico exported high-qu ality livestock to the United States, the COOL 
measures had thus markedly affected Mexico's exporters and their export prices and had created 
uncertainty in the market.  In light of the foregoing, and in view of the fact that the US measures were 
in breach of the GATT 1994, the TBT Agreement, the SPS Agreement and the Agreement on Rules of 
Origin, Mexico was forced to request the establishmen t of a panel, and reiterated that it continued to 
stand ready to work with the United States, in c ooperation and on the basis of mutual support with the 
Canadian authorities, in order to find a mutua lly satisfactory solution to Mexico's concerns. WT/DSB/M/275 
Page 16  
 
  66. The representative of the United States
 said that his country was disappointed that Canada 
and Mexico had chosen to move forward with thei r requests for panel establishment.  He said that 
WTO Members had long recognized that country of or igin labelling was a legitimate policy.  Indeed, 
that recognition predated the entry into force of the WTO Agreement.  It was common for WTO 
Members to require that goods be labelled as to thei r origin.  The United States was confident that its 
measures provided information to consumers in a manner consistent with its WTO commitments.  For 
those reasons, the United States urged Canada and Mexi co to reconsider their decisions to request a 
panel in these disputes.  The United States was not in a position to agree to the establishment of a 
panel at this time. 
67. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to these matters. 
5. European Communities – Certain measures affecting poultry meat and poultry meat 
products from the United States 
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by the United States (WT/DS389/4) 
68. The Chairman  drew attention to the communication from the United States contained in 
document WT/DS389/4, and invited the representative of the United States to speak. 
69. The representative of the United States  said that, as described in th e request that was before 
the DSB, his country was concerned with restrictions that the EC imposed on the import and marketing of poultry meat and poultry meat products from the United States.  In 2002, the United States had requested the EC to approve four  pathogen reduction treatments (PRTs) for use in 
the production of poultry intended for export to the EC.  The EC's own scientists had found that the 
importation and consumption of poultry processed with those four PRTs did not pose a risk to human 
health.  Nonetheless, after more than six years, which had included significant unexplained delays, the 
EC had not approved any of the four PRTs.  Instead , it had rejected the requests for their approval.  
Adding to the US concerns, the EC had never pub lished or otherwise made available the process it 
followed for approving substances such as the PRTs in  question.  As outlined in its panel request, the 
United States considered that the EC's ban on th e import and marketing of US poultry treated with 
those PRTs was inconsistent with several provi sions of the SPS Agreement, the Agreement on 
Agriculture, the GATT 1994, and the TBT Agreement.  The US concerns were not new.  Significant 
US engagement with the EC over many years had faile d to result in the lifting of the EC's ban on the 
import and marketing of US poultry.  Accordingly,  the United States requested that the DSB establish 
a panel to examine this matter, with standard terms of reference. 
70. The representative of the European Communities
 said that his delegation regretted that the 
United States had decided to request the establishment of a panel on this matter, especially in light of 
the dialogue through which the EC had tried to addr ess the US concerns.  Th e EC felt that the US 
request was premature at this stage and, therefore,  did not agree with the US request for the DSB to 
establish a panel on this matter.  
71. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter. 
6. European Communities – Definitive anti-dumping measures on certain iron or steel 
fasteners from China 
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by China (WT/DS397/3) 
72. The Chairman  drew attention to the communicati on from China contained in document 
WT/DS397/3, and invited the representative of China to speak.  WT/DSB/M/275 
 Page 17 
 
 
  73. The representative of China  said that, in accordance with relevant provisions of the DSU, the 
GATT 1994 and the Anti-Dumping Agreement, his country requested the DSB to establish a panel to examine certain measures taken by the EC, incl uding Article 9(5) of Council Regulation (EC) 
No. 384/96 and Council Regulation (EC) No. 91/200 9.  The legal basis for challenging these 
measures had been elaborated in China's panel re quest contained in document WT/DS397/3.  China 
believed that the EC's measures nu llified or impaired the benefits that China enjoyed under the Anti-
Dumping Agreement, the GATT 1994, the WTO Agreem ent and China's Protocol of Accession.  The 
Chinese government and industry had, on many occasi ons, expressed their strong dissatisfaction and 
registered their serious concerns.  Unfortunately , bilateral dialogues and c onsultations under the DSU 
had failed to lead to a satisfactory resolution of the matter.  Thus, China had to proceed to request the 
establishment of a panel to safeguard its legitima te interests incurred under the WTO.  China, once 
again, urged the EC to promptly withdraw rule s and measures inconsistent with the WTO and cease 
the disturbance to Sino-EC trade and the impairment of China's interests. 
74. The representative of the European Communities
 said that his delegation noted China's 
request for the establishment of a panel and regretted the step taken by China.  The EC recalled that 
anti-dumping measures were not about protectionism, but  about fighting unfair trade.  The EC strictly 
followed the applicable WTO rules in all its an ti-dumping cases.  This was also the case for the 
measures on which China was seeking a panel.  The EC was strongly convinced of the strength of its 
case and stood ready to defend its measures which it cons idered to be fully consistent with WTO law.  
At that point in time, the EC had no reason to be hopeful that a mutually agreed solution could still be 
found.  Therefore, the EC accepted China' s request for establishment of a panel. 
75. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to establish a panel in accordance with the 
provisions of Article 6 of the DSU w ith standard terms of reference. 
76. The representatives of Canada , India , Japan , Chinese Taipei  and the United States  reserved 
their third-party rights to participate in the Panel's proceedings. 
7. Adoption of the 2009 draft Annual Report of the DSB (WT/DSB/W/413 and Add.1)  
77. The Chairman  said that, in pursuance of the procedures for an annual overview of WTO 
activities and for reporting under the WTO contained in document WT/L/105, he was submitting for 
adoption the draft text of the 2009 Annual Report of the DSB contained in document WT/DSB/W/413 
and Add.1.  This Report covered the work of the DSB since the previous Annual Report contained in 
document WT/DSB/47 and Add.1.  For practical purposes, the overview of the state of play of WTO disputes covering the period from 1 January 1995 to  30 September 2009, prepared by the Secretariat 
on its own responsibility, was include d in the addendum to this Report.  He proposed that after the 
adoption of the Annual Report at the present meeting, the Secretariat be authorized to update this 
Report under its own responsibility in  order to include actions taken by the DSB at the present 
meeting.  The updated Annual Report of the DSB w ould then be submitted for consideration by the 
General Council at its meeting to  be held on 17 November 2009. 
78. The DSB took note
 of the statement and adopted  the draft Annual Report of the DSB 
contained in WT/DSB/W/413 and Add.1 on the unders tanding that it would be further updated by the 
Secretariat.6 
                                                      
6 The Annual Report was subsequently circulated in document WT/DSB/49 and Add.1. WT/DSB/M/275 
Page 18  
 
  8. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) betwee n the United States and the European 
Commission regarding the importation of high-quality beef and the dispute:  "EC – Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones)" 
(a) Statement by Australia 
(b) Statement by New Zealand 
(c) Statement by Argentina 
(d) Statement by Uruguay 
(e) Statement by Brazil 
 79. The Chairman
 recalled that, at the outset of the meeting, the representatives of Australia, 
New Zealand, Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil had requ ested the inclusion of this matter under "Other 
Business".  He then invited the representatives of the respective delegations to make statements. 
80. The representative of Australia , speaking under "Other Business", referred to the 
13 May 2009 bilateral agreement between the Eur opean Commission and the United States relating to 
the EC - US/Canada Beef Hormones dispute as no tified jointly to the DSB by the EC and the 
United States on 25 September 2009 and circulated  to Members on 30 September 2009.  Australia 
recognized that this agreement sought to find a way forward in the long-running beef hormones 
dispute.  Australia noted that that agreement pr ovided for the establishment of a new tariff-rate quota 
for high quality beef which opened at the beginning of August 2009.  Australia welcomed the EC's 
assurances that the quota was non-discriminatory, was available on a most-favoured-nation basis (MFN) and was open to all countries.  However, Au stralia noted that to date only the United States 
had secured access to the quota and had commenced exporting.  Australia looked forward to 
continuing to work constructively with the EC to ensure that the quota was applied in a genuinely 
MFN basis. 
81. The representative of New Zealand
 said that her country noted that this dispute had a long 
history and that New Zealand had been a third party throughout the proceedings.  New Zealand 
welcomed the fact that the parties had been maki ng active efforts to progress the matter.  As an 
exporter of beef into the EC, New Zealand, like Au stralia, had a close interest in the operation and 
implementation of this new tariff-rate quota for hi gh-quality beef and would continue to monitor 
developments on this issue closely.  New Zealand looked forward to working constructively with the 
EC and others with a view to seeing the quota applied on a genuinely MFN basis and developed 
consistently with relevant WTO Agreements. 
82. The representative of Argentina  said that, like Australia and New Zealand, his country 
welcomed the agreement reached by the EC and the United States pertaining to this long-standing 
dispute.  It was Argentina's understanding that th e quota would be established in accordance with the 
MFN principle.  As a major exporter of high-quality beef, Argentina would like to see that the quota be administered in accordance with that principle.  Therefore, Arge ntina welcomed the possibility of 
working with the EC in order to obtain details re garding the administration of the quota, which would 
enable Argentina's exporters to use that quota.   
83. The representative of Uruguay
 said that the EC and the United States had jointly notified the 
DSB of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), to  which Australia had referred at the present 
meeting, and which had been si gned in Geneva on 13 May 2009.  The notification in question had  WT/DSB/M/275 
 Page 19 
 
 
  been provided more than five months after the Understanding had been agreed between the parties7, 
and three months after Uruguay and some other Me mbers had expressed concerns about the potential 
discrimination and injury that its implementation might entail.  Uruguay noted that the MOU had not 
been notified as a mutually agreed solu tion pursuant to Article 3.6 of the DSU.8  For the purpose of 
implementing the MOU, on 13 July 2009, the Council of the European Union had issued Council 
Regulation No. 617/2009, opening an autonomous ta riff quota for imports of high-quality beef.  On 
the same date, the European Commission had a dopted Commission Regulation (EC) No. 620/2009, 
laying down the rules for the administration of the quota.  Finally, on 31 July 2009, the European Commission had published, in the Official Journal of the European Union, the decision concerning 
"the body authorized to issue certificates of au thenticity under Regulation (EC) No. 620/2009".  All 
those three measures defined the tariff quota fo r high-quality beef in identical terms as those 
contained in Article VI of th e above-mentioned MOU.  Uruguay unde rlined that, until now, the only 
body authorized to issue certificates of authenticity for eligibility for this high-quality beef quota, in 
accordance with the notification published by the EC  Official Journal, was the Food Safety and 
Inspection Service of the US Depa rtment of Agriculture (USDA).
9  Therefore, Uruguay reiterated its 
concerns already expressed at the June 2009 DSB m eeting, and called upon the EC to adopt without 
delay the quota administration measures necessary to bring its measures into conformity with Articles XIII:1, XIII:2 and I:1 of the GATT 1994, th ereby putting an end to ongoing discrimination 
that was detrimental to Uruguay's interest.   
84. The representative of Brazil
 said that his country also noted the joint communication 
regarding the MOU, which had been notified to  the DSB by the EC and the United States on 
25 September 2009.  Pursuant to that MOU, a dut y-free tariff-rate quota for high-quality beef had 
been opened by the EC in August 2009.  The MOU also provided that the tariff-rate quota shall be 
implemented and administered in accordance with  Article XIII of the GATT 1994 and the Import 
Licensing Agreement.  Brazil was following with k een interest the administration of the quota and 
looked forward to its application on a transparent and non-discriminatory basis. 
85. The representative of Paraguay  said that his country noted the agreement finally reached in 
the EC - US Hormones dispute.  As a result, a new MFN quota had been established.  Pursuant to that 
agreement, the above-mentioned quot a would be applied in a non-di scriminatory and open manner to 
all WTO Members.  As an exporter of meat to the EC, Paraguay was ready to work constructively 
towards the implementation of that quota. 
86. The representative of the European Communities  said that the EC wished to reassure WTO 
Members that the quota to which the statements had referred was based on an or igin neutral definition 
that could be met by many countries, and that the quota would be administered on a non-discriminatory basis.  The EC also wished to make a procedural comment, namely that the EC 
statement at the present meeting, in reaction to the statements made by other delegations, could have 
been probably more useful had the EC had more time to prepare.  He noted that not all the statements, 
apart from Australia's statement, seemed to be as basic as would make one believe that there was not 
some preparatory effort in this regard.  It woul d have been more useful if such statements under 
"Other Business" were to be circulated in advan ce, which would enable Members concerned to react 
in a proper manner.  Unfortunately, the EC had not  had the time to consult with the authorities in 
                                                     
 
7 Joint Communication from the EC and the United St ates, "EC – Measures Con cerning Meat and Meat 
Products" (WT/DS26/28). 
8 Article 3.6 of the DSU provides that "[m]utually agreed solutions to matters formally raised under the 
consultation and dispute settlement provisions of the covered agreements shall be notified to the DSB and the 
relevant Councils and Committ ees, where any Member may rais e any point relating thereto". 
9 Commission Communication on the body authorized to issue certificates of authenticity under 
Commission Regulation No. 620/2009. Official Journal of the European Communities, 31 July 2009. WT/DSB/M/275 
Page 20  
 
  Brussels and could, therefore, not react to the stat ements made, with the exception of Australia, in a 
more profound manner.   
87. The representative of the United States
 said that his country thanked Australia, New Zealand, 
Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil, Paraguay, and the EC  for their statements.  The United States also 
thanked Australia for having provided advance notice to the United States and the EC of its intention 
to make a statement under "Other Business" pursuan t to Rule 6 of the DSB Rules of Procedure.  
Given the statements and the level of interest in this issue, and as noted earlier during the present meeting, it would have provided greater notice, not just to the EC and the United States, but also to the broader Membership, had those items been inscribed on the Agenda  with ten days notice pursuant 
to Rules 2 and 3 of the DSB Rules of Procedure.  As had been noted, the United States and the EC 
notified their MOU to the WTO in September 2 009.  As the United States had stated at the 
19 June 2009 DSB meeting, according to the terms of the MOU, any beef that met the definition's 
objective requirements on matters such as diet, age, and quality was eligible for the quota regardless 
of origin.  In addition, it was the US understanding that the EC would administer the quota consistently with WTO principles.   
88. The DSB took note
 of the statements. 
 
__________