RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DSB/M/230 
25 May 2007 
 (07-2156) 
Dispute Settlement Body 
24 April 2007  
 
 
MINUTES OF MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard  
on 24 April 2007  
 
Chairman:  Mr. Bruce Gosper (Australia) 
  
Subjects discussed
: Page  
 
1. Surveillance of implementation of recommendations adopted by the DSB.........................2  
(a) United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropria tions Act of 1998:  Status report by the 
United States .................................................................................................................. .............2  
(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) United States – Laws, regulations and methodology for calculating dumping margins 
("Zeroing"):  Status repor t by the Unite d States .........................................................................7  
2. United States – Continued Dumping and Subsid y Offset Act of 2000:  Implementation 
of the recommendations ad opted by the DSB ........................................................................9  
(a) Statements by Canada, the Eur opean Communiti es and Japan...................................................9  
3. Chile – Provisional safeguard measure on certain milk products/Chile – Definitive 
safeguard measure on certain milk products .......................................................................11  
(a) Request for the establishment of  a panel by Argentina ............................................................11  
4. India – Measures affecting the importation and sale of wines and spirits from the 
European Communities..........................................................................................................1 2 
(a) Request for the establishment of a pa nel by the European Communities.................................12  
5. United States – Anti-dumping measures on  oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from 
Mexico......................................................................................................................... .............13  
(a) Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Mexico:  Request for the establishment of a panel ...13  
6. Indicative list of governmental and non-governmental panelists.......................................14  
(a) Statement by the Chairman...................................................................................................... .14 
7. Integrated database of trade disputes regar ding Latin America and the Caribbean ......14  
(a) Statement by Chile............................................................................................................. .......14  
8. Appointment of Appella te Body members............................................................................15  
(a) Statement by the Chairman...................................................................................................... .15 WT/DSB/M/230 
Page 2  
 
  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.53) 
 (b) United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan:  
Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.53) 
 (c) United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act:  Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/Add.28) 
 
(d) United States – Laws, regulations a nd methodology for calculating dumping margins 
("Zeroing"):  Status report by the United States (WT/DS294/20/Add.2) 
 1. The Chairman
 recalled that Article 21.6 of the DSU required that "unless the DSB decides 
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 pursuant to paragraph 3 and shall remain on the DSB's agenda until the issue is 
resolved".  He proposed that the four sub-items to which he had just referred be considered separately. 
(a) United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropria tions Act of 1998:  Status report by the 
United States (WT/DS176/11/Add.53) 
2. The Chairman   drew attention to document WT/DS176/ 11/Add.53, 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 April 2007, in accordance with Ar ticle 21.6 of the DSU.  As noted in the 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, in both the US Senate and the US 
House of Representatives.  The US Administratio n continued to work with the US Congress to 
implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings. 
4. The representative of the European Communities  said that recent actions taken by the United 
States had demonstrated that the United States shared the EC's convi ction that the development of 
trade could not go without an effective protection of intellectual property ri ghts associated with the 
goods.  The EC hoped that the present US Congress would recognize this and would finally bring an 
end to this dispute to the benefit of all.  In this  context, the fact that 43 representatives were already 
supporting bills to repeal Section 211 was welcome news and an encouraging sign.  The EC urged 
again the United States to comply with it s obligations under the TRIPS Agreement. 
5. The representative of Cuba  said that it was regrettable that the DSB continued to monitor the 
compliance with the recommendations adopted more than five years ago and that, at this stage a status 
report submitted by the United States did not provide any information that a solution  to this dispute 
could be found shortly.  The United States, the only Member to disrespect the principle of prompt compliance, did not seem to be concerned about th e negative impact of its action on the balance of 
rights and obligations under the TRIPS Agreement, rights which it had claimed to advocate, and on the effectiveness and credibility of the multilateral tr ading system.  Cuba wished to reiterate its 
systemic concerns regarding irregularities in this dispute since there was no reasonable time period for 
compliance with the recommendations adopted by the DSB.  Previous reasonable periods of time had 
expired, including the most recent one, which had expired in July 2005.  This situation was in 
contradiction with Article 21 of the DSU a nd encouraged the attitude of the infringer.  WT/DSB/M/230 
 Page 3 
 
 
  6. Given the lack of details provided by the United States on the bills introduced in the current 
US Congress and the incorrect information provided re peatedly by the United St ates to the effect that 
the US Administration was working with the US Congress to implement the DSB's rulings in this 
case, Cuba wished to inform delegations of the true  state of play.  As Cuba had indicated at the 
previous DSB meeting, Bill H.R. 1306, which had its  own version in the Senate, S.749, was intended 
to perpetuate Section 211 by misleadingly introduci ng a number of cosmetic changes, thus allowing 
the theft of Cuban trademarks of recognized intern ational prestige to continue.  According to an 
article in The Miami Herald of 24 March 2007, this bill had been co-sponsored by Florida 
Congressmen Bill Nelson and Mel Martínez as paymen t to the Bacardí company for its generous 
contributions to their political campaigns.  The Miam i Herald was generally very well informed with 
regard to the activities engaged in by this comp any and these congressmen against Cuba. Speaking on 
this bill, the Executive Director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) had 
stated, "it's a private bill, helps only one company, and it's something that undermines American trademarks registered in Cuba''.  Cuba was awar e of other bills which sought to abolish various 
measures used in the illegal economic, commercia l and financial blockade imposed on Cuba, 
including those pursuing the repeal of Section 211, the only lawful solution to this dispute.  For 
example, Bill H.R. 217, sponsored by Congressma n José Serrano and introduced in the House of 
Representatives on 4 January 2007 and Bill H.R. 624  sponsored by Congressman Charles Rangel and 
introduced in the House on 22 January 2007, which were similar to others filed in previous 
legislatures. 
7. The truth, however, was that the US Admini stration had never worked with the US Congress 
to implement the DSB's recommendations on Secti on 211 and nor was it doing so at present.  In 
previous US Congresses, with the Republican lead ership dominating at the time, the current 
Administration manipulated the legislature on a number of occasions in order to forestall consideration and approval of a variety of similar bills.  Since then, nothing had changed.  Now, like 
before, the US President had reiterated, through a number of channels, his intention to veto any 
resolution or bill approved by Congress which aime d to ease or eliminate the illegal unilateral 
measures imposed by the United States against Cuba , including the arbitrary Section 211.  What 
cooperation with Congress in respect of Section 211 was the US representative talking about?  At 
present, the Cuba export company was without a doubt the legitimate owner of the Havana Club trademark on US territory, and not the usurper Baca rdí, the beneficiary of Section 211.  Although 
Havana Club rum, produced in Cuba and marketed by Havana Club International, was sold in 124 
countries, it was not sold in the United States becau se of the US blockade based in part on the 
unlawful Section 211. 
8. In March 2007, the Madrid Court of Appeal had upheld the ruling handed down by a Court of 
First Instance in June 2005, rejec ting Barcardí's request to be rec ognized as owner of the Havana Club 
rum trademark and to have the registration of its Cuban competitor annulled.  The Spanish Court of 
Appeal had recognized, among other reasons and circ umstances demonstrating the unlawful nature of 
Section 211, that the Arechavala family, which ha d sold the so-called rights to the Havana Club 
trademark to Bacardí, had registered the trademark in 1935, but had not renewed its registration when 
it had expired, and that Havana Club's prestige was the direct and exclusive outcome of the continued 
commercial efforts and investments made by Havana  Club Holding, and not by Barcardí.  The legal 
proceedings instituted by Bacardí had, therefore, be en considered to be unfair and unreasonable and to 
have the sole intention of causing injury to a comp etitor.  These alone were the true reasons for this 
lengthy dispute. 
9. The United States could resolve this dispute and should not let another year go by without 
doing so.  Unlike the majority of the disputes exam ined by the DSB, in this case the beneficiary of 
Section 211 was not economically affected in any way, but it sought to obtain new dividends by 
means of arbitrary action taken by those whose pr otection it enjoyed.  Failing to comply with the 
DSB's decisions for yet another year would have an  immeasurable impact on the WTO, where rights WT/DSB/M/230 
Page 4  
 
  and obligations went hand in hand, as they did in  any other international organization.  If this 
Organization was not capable of ensuring that the ri ghts of the smallest a nd least developed Members 
were respected and that the largest and most deve loped Members met their obligations, what kind of 
transparent and predictable multilateral trading syst em and what reciprocity and non-discrimination, 
as referred to in the preamble to the Marrakesh Agreement, were ther e to speak of?  Cuba asked that 
Members gave consideration to these systemic implica tions before it was too late.  Once again, Cuba 
renewed its call on the United States to take immedi ate and effective action to implement the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings and insisted that the onl y possible solution to this dispute was to repeal 
Section 211. 
10. The representative of India
 said that her country thanked the United States for the situation 
report and the statement.  However, as mentioned pr eviously several times, India noted that there was 
no substantial change in the situation report.  Indi a continued to reiterate that this was a matter of 
great systemic concern and insisted that the rulings  and recommendations of the DSB were to be fully 
complied with.  India strongly felt that to ensure ef fective resolution of disputes to the benefit of all 
Members, the principle of prompt compliance was essential.  India, therefore, urged the parties to this 
dispute to inform the DSB as to how they intende d to fulfill the objective of prompt settlement. 
11. The representative of China  said that his country thanked the Unites States for its status report 
and the statement.  As other delegations had stat ed, it had been about five years since the DSB had 
adopted both the Panel and the Appe llate Body reports pertaining to this case.  The implementation in 
this case was still under discussion in the DSB.  Besid es, it was regrettable that this status report was 
identical to the report submitted by the DSB in Ma rch, and did not provide new information as to 
when this matter would be resolved to the satisf action of the parties to the dispute and other WTO 
Members.  Although Members were conscious of po ssible difficulties involved in implementation, the 
undue delay of full implementation of the DSB's ru lings had caused systemic concerns about the 
functioning and efficiency of the dispute settlement system.  Article 21.1 of the DSU stipulated that prompt compliance with the recommendations or rulings of the DSB was essential to ensure effective 
resolution of disputes to the benefit of all Members.  Therefore, China again urged the United States 
to fully implement the decision of the DSB re garding this dispute as soon as possible.  
12. The representative of Brazil
 said that, in view of the systemic relevance of the issue discussed 
under this agenda item, Brazil wished to reiterate  its concerns about the continued non-compliance 
situation in this dispute.  More than five year s had passed since the adoption of the reports of the 
Panel and the Appellate Body by the DSB, and no  implementing action had been taken by the United 
States thus far.  Further, Members could not discer n from the short status reports provided by the 
United States that the matter would soon be settled.  As Brazil had repeatedly stated, prompt and full 
implementation of the DSB's rulings and recommenda tions was one of the major means to keep the 
rules-based multilateral trading system credible and vibrant.  A protracted non-compliance situation, 
as in this case, by one of the major WTO players cl early undermined the credibility of the system and 
altered the balance of rights and obligations.  Brazil,  therefore, called on the United States to take the 
necessary and urgent steps to implement the relevant DSB's rulings and recommendations 
13. The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  said that his country thanked 
Cuba for its statement, which it fully endorsed, give n that, as his delegation had stated on previous 
occasions, his country considered Cuba's complaint to be legitimate.  This had been demonstrated by 
the DSB when it had adopted the finding that Section 211 was inconsistent with the WTO 
Agreements and the fundamental WTO principles.  Hi s country also took note of the status report 
submitted by the United States.  His delegation, once ag ain, wished to draw attention to the continued 
indifference of the United States to this case.  As his delegation had stated at the previous meeting, his country would appreciate more detailed information on concrete efforts being made by the respective 
US authorities to comply with the Panel's reco mmendations. The reiteration of the status report 
merely served to demonstrate the static nature of th e situation.  His delegation wished to stress that  WT/DSB/M/230 
 Page 5 
 
 
  this continued failure to comply with the pr ovisions of the TRIPS Agreement undermined the 
authority of that Agreement, the impartiality of th e DSB, and as a result, the credibility of the WTO.  
This situation had a greater significance at the pr esent time since the negotiations to conclude the 
Doha Development Round were under way.  His country, therefore, urged the United States, the only 
WTO Member that systematically failed to co mply with the Panel's rulings under the TRIPS 
Agreement, to bring itself into compliance therewith.   
14. The representative of Nicaragua  said that, like previous speakers, her country reiterated 
systemic concerns regarding this matter.  Failure  to reach a prompt settlement of this dispute 
continued to put at risk the balance of rights and obligations among WTO Members, the legitimacy 
and efficiency of the dispute settlement system, an d the protection of intellectual property rights.  
Nicaragua hoped that the US Congress would adopt the appropriate legislative measures in the near 
future. 
15. The representative of Zimbabwe  said that her delegation wished to join those delegations who 
had expressed concern about the non-implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings with 
regard to Section 211 of the Omni bus Appropriations Act of 1998.  Five years was, indeed, a long 
time, especially as the credibility of the rules-based multilateral tr ading system was at stake.  
Zimbabwe noted in the US status report that the US Administration continued to work with the US 
Congress to ensure the development of appropriate  statutory measures to resolve the matter.  
Zimbabwe joined previous speakers in urging th e United States to fully implement, as soon as 
possible, the DSB's recommendations and rulings pe rtaining to this case.  Her country hoped that 
those who had to endure this situation of non-comp liance for a long time would not have to wait any 
longer and would finally witness the US compliance.  Zimbabwe hoped that there would be an early 
settlement of the issue. 
16. The representative of Argentina  noted that the United States had, once again, made a brief 
status report regarding the DSB's recommendations pe rtaining to the Section 211 dispute.  Argentina 
thanked Cuba for its statement in which it had informed  delegations about the status of this dispute.  
One of the virtues of diplomacy was patience and in this case, Members had had sufficient amount of 
patience in the past five years.  This matter had b een raised over the past five years not just at the 
present meeting.  Therefore, Argentina asked that the United States heed the requests of Members and 
noted that this non-compliance situation undermined the credibility of the dispute settlement system 
and the WTO.  Furthermore, Argentina requested th at the United States submit a detailed status report 
on developments regarding implem entation and inform the DSB of a possible date for compliance. 
17. The representative of Bolivia  said that her country noted the US report, which was brief.  It 
also noted, once again, the lack of progress in lif ting the restrictions under Section 211.  Bolivia 
wished to reiterate its concern regarding the status of this particular disput e, which had started five 
years ago.  Such a failure to comply with the rulings undermined the credibility of the multilateral 
trading system, the DSB, the quality of the co mmitments that countries had undertaken under the 
TRIPS Agreement.  For the above reasons, Bolivia , once again, urged the United States to comply 
with the DSB's rulings and recommendations and to re new its effort to ensure that the US authorities 
remove the restrictions imposed under Section 211. 
18. The representative of the United States  said that his country thanked the EC for its recognition 
of the US commitment to intellectual property righ ts and the recent activities in the US Congress.  
The United States regretted that some Member s had, once again, suggested that the US 
Administration was not providing sufficient details of how it was working with the US Congress to 
implement the recommendations and rulings in this dispute.  As the United States had explained at a 
previous DSB meeting, it would be incorrect to suggest that nothing was being done.  The United States wished to recall again that it was not always possible or appropriate to recount internal governmental efforts to pass legislation.  And, as his delegation had previously stated, the United WT/DSB/M/230 
Page 6  
 
  States had heard similar criticisms about the level of detail of US status reports in other disputes in 
which the US Congress had ultimately passed legislation. 
19. The representative of Cuba
 said that, once again, his country  wished to be associated and 
agreed with the statements made by some delegations  under this agenda item.  Cuba raised this matter 
over a long period of time and wished that the Un ited States provide information as to when it would 
comply with the recommendations as well as that it provi de more details regarding this dispute.  The 
United States had stated that its Administration ha d worked over years with the Congress in order to 
avoid reconsideration and approval of bills or amendments, which would correct or eliminate 
Section 211.  Cuba wished to know whether or not the US President had stated that any legislation, which would eliminate Section 211, would be vetoed .  That was what Cuba was awaiting, not just 
short statements of goodwill.  He noted that the st atements of goodwill had not been translated into 
reality. 
20. 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.53) 
21. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS184/ 15/Add.53, 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 12 April 2007, in  accordance with Article 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 document WT/DS184/15/Add.3.  The US Administration 
would work with the new Congress, which had c onvened in January 2007, with respect to the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB that had not already been addressed by the US authorities 
by 23 November 2002. 
23. The representative of Japan  said that his country took note of the statement by the United 
States along with its latest status report that th e US Administration was working with the new US 
Congress to pass specific legislative amendments that would implement the DSB's recommendations 
and rulings.  Japan recalled that the DSB had adopt ed the recommendations and rulings regarding this 
case in August 2001, almost six years ago.  Unfortunat ely, though, the issue of implementation in this 
case remained on the agenda of the DSB and the United States still had to report on the status of its 
implementation.  As Members recognized, a fu ll and prompt implementation of the DSB's 
recommendation and ruling was essential for the e ffectiveness and credibility of the WTO dispute 
settlement system.  Japan strongly urged the Unit ed States to accelerate its effort and work to 
complete full implementation in this dispute at the earliest possible date. 
24. The representative of Argentina  said that Japan had just reminded delegations that this case 
dated back to 2001.  Once again, Argentina thanked the United States for its report and wished to be 
associated with Japan's request that the United States fully implement the DSB's recommendations 
and rulings pertaining to this dispute.  
25. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting.  WT/DSB/M/230 
 Page 7 
 
 
  (c) United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act:  Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/Add.28) 
26. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS160/ 24/Add.28, 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. 
27. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 12 April 2007, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  The US Administration 
would work closely with the new US Congress and conti nue to confer with the EC, in order to reach a 
mutually satisfactory resolution of this matter.  In this regard, the United States appreciated the EC's 
statement at the 20 March 2007, DSB meeting that the EC was prepared to work with the United 
States to seek a mutually satisfactory solution to this  dispute.  The United States shared the EC's goal 
of discussing how such a solution could be achieved. 
28. The representative of the European Communities  said that it seemed that the new US 
Congress might be more receptive to the deference of  TRIPS-derived rights.  The EC sincerely hoped 
that the United States would not miss this opportuni ty to put its own house in order.  The EC's 
position on this dispute was well known, the EC wished to see the law conform to the WTO 
obligations of the United States.  The EC remained prepared to work with the United States to seek a 
mutually satisfactory solution to this dispute and h oped that a solution could be  identified in the near 
future. 
29. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(d) United States – Laws, regul ations and methodology for calculating dumping margins 
("Zeroing"):  Status report by the United States (WT/DS294/20/Add.2) 
30. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS294/ 20/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. 
31. The representative of the United States  said that his country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 12 April 2007, in accordance with Ar ticle 21.6 of the DSU.  From 22 February 2007, 
the US Department of Commerce  had provided offsets for non-dumped comparisons when conducting 
average-to-average comparisons in investigations .  Further, on 9 April 2007, the Department of 
Commerce had issued determinations to provide off sets in connection with investigations that were 
the subject of this dispute.  Details on these dete rminations were provided in the US status report 
(WT/DS294/20/Add.2).  The Department of Commer ce continued to work towards completion of a 
determination in one investigation in which the r espondent had alleged a clerical error which it had 
requested that it be corrected.  The United Stat es was pleased to report that it had otherwise 
implemented the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this dispute. 
32. The representative of the European Communities  said that the reasonable period of time for 
implementation of the DSB's rulings in this disput e had expired on 9 April, and the situation as of 
now called for some satisfaction and more disappointment.  On the positive side, the EC welcomed 
the decision to abandon zeroing in original investigations when calculating the dumping margin on a weighted average-to-weighted average basis.  Th e EC also welcomed the revocation of the anti-
dumping order, or reduction of the duty rate fo llowing the re-calculation of the dumping margin 
without zeroing, in 14 of the 15 specific original measures found in breach of the US obligations.  
Unfortunately, the EC must once again express its disappointment at yet another failure of the 
United States to solve completely a WTO dispute by the required deadline.  The EC was currently WT/DSB/M/230 
Page 8  
 
  analyzing in more detail the actions taken by the United States, but a number of issues already 
appeared still open.  In the 15 specific original inv estigations, the EC considered that its comments on 
the preliminary results had not been properly addr essed in the final results.  At the present meeting, 
the EC wished to mention two of them.  First, th e United States apparently intended to continue to 
apply zeroing after 9 April 2007 as regards the dut y assessment of imports which had entered before 
that date.  This was not acceptable.  The non-zer oed duty rate should replace the zeroed rate to 
liquidate duties even if the import pre-dates the date  of implementation.  Continuing to collect duties 
on the basis of rates inflated by zeroing is tant amount to maintaining zeroing in breach of the 
obligation to cease this illegal practice by 9 April.   It was regrettable that the USDOC still seemed 
determined to issue instructions to  this effect in a number of cases. 
33. Second, the USDOC had also maintained the ma ssive increase of the "all others" rate in 
certain cases.  As a side effect of revoking the duty  for certain exporters which had been shown not to 
be dumping without zeroing, the USDOC re-calculate d the "all others" duty, basing it mainly on the 
duty for exporters with "adverse facts available".  Th is was in effect putting exporters subject to the 
"all others rate" in the same basket as firms whic h had allegedly actively impeded the investigation, 
without demonstrating that such treatment was appropr iate.  To give an example, the all-others rate 
for Stainless Steel Bars from the UK had increased from 4.48 per cent to 83.85 per cent from one day to the next.  Yet no firms subject to this rate were concerned by the impl ementation procedure in 
DS294 and no US party requested any increase in th eir duty.  The consequences had been to shut a 
number of small exporters out of the market.  Tu rning now to the 16 periodic reviews also found 
WTO- incompatible, the United States had now allege d that it did not have to take any action as each 
of these measures would have been "superseded" by late r administrative reviews.  In at least one case, 
this was simply not correct, but in any event it ignored completely the issue of duties still to be 
liquidated on the basis of measures condemned by the WTO.  By liquidating these duties on the basis of zeroed rate, the United States, again, granted it self the right  to apply WTO-incompatible measures 
after the expiry of the implementation period.  It al so purported to shield in practice its administrative 
reviews from WTO control and obligations since in  almost all cases there would have been a 
subsequent administrative review by the time th e United States had to implement the DSB ruling 
condemning a previous administrative review.  Fo llowing the US reasoning, would mean that the 
United States could accumulate WTO-incompatible measures without proper remedy.  Thus, in most cases, the administrative reviews s ubsequent to the ones condemned in  DS294 were also affected by 
zeroing and were currently subject to the DS350 dispute brought by the EC in October 2006.  The EC 
would further analyze the situation and would take th e appropriate steps to protect its rights should the 
outstanding issues remained open. 
34. The representative of Japan
 said that on 9 April 2007, the reasonable period of time for the 
United States to implement the recommendations of th e DSB in this dispute had expired.  Japan noted 
favorably that, as part of its implementation effort s, the United States had put an end to the use of 
zeroing methodology in the weighted average-to-weighted average price comparison in its anti-
dumping investigations and had r ecalculated the dumping margins without zeroing in the specific 
original investigations challenged by the EC.  However, it appeared that implementation was only 
partial and more work needed to be done for full implementation, in particular, in relation to the 
collection of anti-dumping duties on non-liquidated en tries that had entered before the date of 
implementation, as well as the application of ze roing in periodic reviews, which the EC had 
challenged and were also found to be WTO-inconsis tent on the as-applied basis.  Japan had been a 
third party actively participating in this dispute and was also a party to another closely related dispute 
regarding the United States' zeroing measures.  Thus , Japan had a strong and substantive interest and 
stake in how and when the United States would take measures to comply with the non-implemented part of recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this dispute.  Japan was, therefore, closely 
monitoring any US action in this respect.  Japan st rongly hoped that the Untied States would promptly 
and fully implement the DSB's recommendations and ru lings to "ensure effective resolution of [this] 
dispute[] to the benefit of all Me mbers" (Article 21.1 of the DSU).  WT/DSB/M/230 
 Page 9 
 
 
  35. The representative of the United States  said that his country wished to reiterate that the US 
Department of Commerce had abandoned the use of "zeroing" in connection with average-to-average 
comparisons in investigations.  The Department of  Commerce had also recalculated the margins in the 
investigations that were the subject of this dis pute, without engaging in "zeroing."  This dispute 
involved a challenge to the use of "zeroing" in 16 specific assessment reviews.  The United States was 
considering the issue of reviews more generally in connection with DS322. 
36. 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 Canada, the European Communities and Japan 
37. The Chairman  said that this item was on the agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
Canada, the European Communities and Japan and invited the respective representatives to speak. 
38. The representative of Canada  said that while his country appreciated the steps the United 
States had taken towards implementing the rulings a nd recommendations in this dispute, the United 
States had only prospectively repealed the Byrd  Amendment.  Anti-dumping and countervailing 
duties collected up to 30 September 2007 could still be  disbursed to US producers under the terms of 
this legislation.  As such, Canada believed that th e US claim – made in its last status report from over 
a year ago – that it had "taken the actions necess ary to implement the rulings and recommendations" 
in this dispute was not accurate.  Canada, ther efore, called on the United States to resume the 
submission of status reports and to repeal the Byrd Amendment. 
39. The representative of the European Communities  said that on 16 April 2007, the Commission 
had adopted a regulation increasing the level of reta liation applied in the present dispute.  As of 
1 May 2007, the 15 per cent additional import dut y would be extended to 32 new categories of 
products, which included paper produc ts, furniture of plastics, tex tile products, pens, footwear and 
mobile homes.  This would bring the level of  retaliation to the US$81.19 million of retaliation 
authorized on the basis of the latest distribution under the CDSOA.  This followed the incomplete 
implementation of the DSB's ruling by the Unite d States and executed the obligation of annual 
adjustment imposed by the DSB authorization to su spend the application of concessions to the United 
States granted to the EC on 26 November 2004.  Ind eed, if the repeal of th e CDSOA was a significant 
and welcome step in the right direction, but remain ed insufficient to bring the United States into full 
conformity with its WTO obligations as distributi ons would continue for a while under the transition 
clause.  The EC wished to ask again the United States  if and what steps it intended to take to stop the 
transfer of anti-dumping and countervailing duties to its industry.  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 implementation reports in this dispute. 
40. The representative of Japan
 said that, at previous DSB meetings, the United States had 
repeatedly claimed that by enacting the Defic it Reduction Act of 2005, it had taken all necessary 
actions to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings and that it was not necessary to submit a status report under Article 21.6 of the DSU.  However, under the transitional clause, the illegal distribution continued and would continue for years to come.  The United States had never claimed otherwise, but maintained that the issue had been resolved.  Japan failed to see why such contention 
was possible.  It was unfortunate that the EC must renew its retaliatory measures and was forced to 
increase their level.  Japan, on its part, had been imposing its retaliatory measure in accordance with 
the authorization granted by the DSB as from Sept ember 2005 in order to induce full compliance by 
the United States in this dispute.  Japan, once again,  called on the United States to terminate the illegal WT/DSB/M/230 
Page 10  
 
  distribution, and to completely remove the CDSOA not  just in form but in substance.  Japan also 
reiterated that the United States was under obligation to provide the DSB with a status report pursuant 
to Article 21.6 of the DSU.  Japan reserved all its rights under the DSU until the United States would 
come into full compliance. 
41. The representative of Brazil
 said that his country thanked Canada, the EC and Japan for 
raising this issue once again.  Their resilience in  keeping this highly relevant matter on the DSB's 
agenda was commendable, and was only comparable  to that of the United States in defending the 
assertion that, with the prospective repeal of the Byrd Amendment, it had brought itself into conformity with the multilateral rules.  Needless to  repeat that Brazil had judged that the prospective 
repeal of that illegal measure was not sufficient to  sustain the claim by the United States that all 
necessary implementing actions had been put into pl ace.  Brazil recalled that, after the enactment of 
the US legislation containing such repeal, a US $380 million-disbursement occurred in October 2006, 
showing that the WTO-inconsistency found to exist by the DSB remained in force.  Brazil did not 
want to downplay the relevance of the legislativ e action by the United States, but believed that 
Members should obtain, at a minimum, an explan ation from the United States on how this could be 
reconciled with the US statements of compliance.  Brazil remained of the opinion – solidly grounded 
in the DSB's recommendations in this dispute – th at full compliance on the part of the United States 
would only come through the complete elimination of  all disbursements under the Byrd Amendment.  
Given that this was not the case, the co-complainant s could not be deprived of any right conferred by 
the DSU with respect to this situation of non-compliance. 
42. The representative of Thailand
 said that her country thanked Canada, the EC, and Japan for 
continuing to bring this item before the DSB.  As her delegation had noted at  previous DSB meetings, 
Thailand remained disappointed at the United States ' continued illegal disbursement of funds under 
the CDSOA.  Thailand also remained disappointed at the Unites States' continued lack of status 
reports on its outstanding implementa tion in this dispute.  Therefore, Thailand, once more, called on 
the United States to cease its WTO-inconsistent dis bursements, to repeal the Byrd Amendment with 
immediate practical effect, and to resume providing  status reports until such actions were taken and 
this matter had been fully resolved. 
43. The representative of India  said that her country thanked Canada, the EC and Japan for 
raising this issue in the DSB again.  With due indulgence, India wished to repeat its previous 
statement.  India was unable to understand how the United States could claim to be in compliance in 
this matter while continuing to disburse anti-dump ing and countervailing duties to their industry.  
India shared the views of Canada, the EC and Japan that the "issue" was not resolved in this dispute 
within the meaning of Article 21.6 of the DSU.  Indi a, therefore, urged the United States to inform the 
DSB of the steps it proposed to take to ensure fu ll compliance, and reiterated its request that the 
United States resume submitting status reports in this dispute. 
44. The representative of China  said that his country thanked and supported Canada, the EC and 
Japan for raising this item at the present meeting.  China appreciated the effort s of the United States to 
implement the DSB's rulings and recommendations in  this dispute and welcomed the repeal of 
CDSOA.  However, China shared the view expres sed by previous speakers that the implementation 
issue had not been resolved in this dispute within the framework of Article 21 of the DSU.  It was the 
obligation of a Member to fully and promptly implement the DSB's rulings and recommendations, 
which was critically important to the credibility a nd efficiency of the dispute settlement system.  
Therefore, China wished to join th e previous speakers in urging the United States to comply fully with 
the DSB's rulings. 
45. The representative of the United States  said that, as his country had already explained at 
previous DSB meetings, the US President had signed the Deficit Reduction Act into law on 
8 February 2006.  That Act included a provisio n repealing the Continued Dumping and Subsidy  WT/DSB/M/230 
 Page 11 
 
 
  Offset Act of 2000.  Thus, the United States had ta ken all actions necessary to implement the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in these disputes.  With  respect to comments regarding further status 
reports in this matter, as his delegation had alread y explained, the United States had taken all steps 
necessary to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in these disputes.  Those Members 
who had inscribed this item on the agenda of the present meeting were, of course, free to do so, but 
the United States failed to see what purpose would be served by further submission of status reports 
repeating the progress the United States had made in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  The United States also  regretted that Japan and the EC had decided to 
continue to suspend concessions and that the EC ha d decided to increase the level of suspension of 
concessions.  Indeed, in the course of these disput es, these Members had made clear that their purpose 
in suspending concessions was to  "induce compliance".  Now that the United States had taken all 
steps necessary to comply with the recommendations  and rulings of the DSB, the United States failed 
to see how the continued suspension of concessions will further that purpose. 
46. The DSB took note
 of the statements.  
3. Chile – Provisional safeguard measure on cer tain milk products/Chile – Definitive 
safeguard measure on certain milk products 
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by Argentina (WT/DS351/2 – WT/DS356/2) 
47. The Chairman  recalled that the DSB had considered this matter at its meeting on 
20 March 2007, and had agreed to revert to it.  He drew attention to the communication from Argentina contained in document WT/DS351/2 – WT /DS356/2, and invited the representative of 
Argentina  to speak. 
48. The representative of Argentina
 said that the request for the establishment of a panel to 
resolve this dispute had first been submitted by  Argentina at the DSB meeting on 20 March 2007 and 
had been circulated to Members as document WT/D S351/2  – WT/DS356/2.  On that occasion, the 
reasons for Argentina's decision to submit such a re quest had clearly been explained and a description 
had been given regarding the violations committed by Chile throughout the investigation procedure in 
respect of its undertakings under the GATT 1994 and the Agreement on Safeguards.  At the risk of 
reiterating what had already been stated at that meet ing, Argentina considered that it was important to 
underscore some of the more blatant infringeme nts committed by Chile during the investigation 
procedure, details of which coul d be found in Argentina's panel request.  He recalled that, between 
September and December 2006, Chile had first impo sed a provisional measure and then a definitive 
measure on liquid milk, powdered milk and Gouda  cheese from Argentina.  These measures had been 
imposed within the framework of a single investigation  initiated in August 2006,  and consisted of a 
tariff surcharge of 23 per cent, applicable for a pe riod of 200 days, and one year, respectively.  
49. Argentina emphasized that during the investiga tion procedure and in terms of the measure 
itself, both of which had been directed exclusively against imports from Argentina, Chile had infringed a fundamental principle of the legal syst em governing international trade:  i.e. most-
favoured-nation treatment.  The above was without  prejudice to other inconsistencies which, 
according to Argentina, had been attributable to Chile both during the initiation of the investigation 
and in the course of the procedure for adopting the safeguard measures.  The following examples 
would suffice to make this clear:  (i) Chile had faile d to provide an adequate definition of the like or 
directly competitive products or of the domestic  industry manufacturing like products or products 
directly competing with imported products;  (ii) no  findings or reasoned conc lusions on all pertinent 
issues of fact and law had been drawn up or stated in the record;  (iii) it was not demonstrated that 
unforeseen developments had occurred or that the alleged increase in imports and the conditions 
under which they had taken place were the result of unforeseen developments and the effect of 
obligations assumed under the GATT 1994;  (iv) it w as not established that the alleged increase in WT/DSB/M/230 
Page 12  
 
  imports had occurred under such conditions so as to  cause or threaten to cause serious injury;  
(v) there was not demonstration of a significant ove rall impairment in the position of the relevant 
domestic industry or any clearly imminent serious in jury, nor an evaluation of all relevant factors 
carried out to determine serious injury or the threat  thereof;  and (vi) there was no demonstration of 
causal link between the alleged increase in imports of the products at issue and the alleged serious 
injury to the domestic industry.  In view of the foregoing, and given that Argentina and Chile had not 
yet found a mutually agreed solution, Argentina, pursuant to Article 6 of the DSU, requested the 
establishment of a panel, with standard te rms of reference, to examine its claims. 
50. The representative of Chile
 said that his country took note of Argentina's second panel request 
and regretted that during the time that had elapsed since the previous meeting, Argentina had failed to 
clarify the legal basis and the reasons which, in its view, warranted joining two requests for 
consultations on different measures to form a single request for the establishment of a panel.  Thus, 
instead of explaining the implications of that si ngle request, Argentina had opted for maintaining a 
state of uncertainty as to its claims.  While repeating that it had sought no legal grounds for joining two requests for consultations on different measures to form a single panel request, Chile reserved the 
right to challenge that request, including its incons istency with Article 6.2 of the DSU, at the first 
possible opportunity. 
51. 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. 
52. The representative of the United States  reserved third-party rights to participate in the Panel's 
proceedings. 
4. India – Measures affecting the importation and sale of wines and spirits from the 
European Communities 
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by the European Communities (WT/DS352/4) 
53. The Chairman  recalled that the DSB had considered this matter at its meeting on 
10 April 2007, and had agreed to revert to it.  He drew attention to the communication from the 
European Communities contained in document WT /DS352/4, and invited the representative of the 
European Communities to speak. 
54. The representative of the European Communities  said that the present meeting was the second 
time that the EC was requesting the DSB to establis h a panel on India's measures on imports of wines 
and spirits from the EC.  This was a long-standing issu e and of very serious concern to the EC.  At the 
present meeting, the EC would not repeat the reas ons which had led to this request.  The details 
regarding the fundamental concerns raised by India's measures, and the extent to which these 
measures continued to restrict access of wines and sp irits from the EC into the Indian market, were 
contained in the EC's request for the establishment of a panel.  Pursuant to Article 6 of the  DSU, the EC, therefore, requested for the second time that a panel be established to examine India's measures. 
55. The representative of India
 said that her country remained disappointed that the EC had 
chosen to pursue the matter further by requesting the establishment of a panel.  Both India and the EC 
had had constructive and fruitful consultations.  In dia and the EC had agreed to work towards a 
mutually acceptable solution.  India was confident that the panel would find that the measures were 
consistent with India's WTO obligations.  Nevert heless, India understood that the panel would be 
established at the present meeting to consider the EC's claims. 
56. The representative of the United States  said that his country continued to share the EC's 
concern that India's additional and extra additional duties appeared to be inconsistent with India's  WT/DSB/M/230 
 Page 13 
 
 
  WTO obligations.  The United States had now also cons ulted with India with respect to these duties.  
The United States continued to urge India to remove the duties quickly to resolve both disputes. 
57. 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. 
58. The representatives of  Australia , Chile , Japan  and the United States  reserved their third-party 
rights to participate in the Panel's proceedings. 
5. United States – Anti-dumping measures on oil country tubular goods (OCTG) from 
Mexico 
(a) Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Mexico:  Request for the establishment of a panel 
(WT/DS282/14) 
59. The Chairman  drew attention to the communicati on from Mexico contained in document 
WT/DS282/14, and invited the representative of Mexico to speak.  
60. The representative of Mexico  said that, as stated in its communication of 12 April 2007, 
Mexico requested the establishment of a panel pursu ant to Article 21.5 of the DSU and the sequencing 
agreement, which Mexico and the United States had jointly notified to the WTO on 11 July 2006 
(WT/DS282/12).  This request was a response to th e failure of the United States to implement the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings of 28 Novemb er 2005 within the reasonable period of time, 
which had been agreed upon by both parties.  That pe riod of time had expired almost a year ago.  
Since then, Mexico had been monitoring the action taken by the US authorities in the hope that, at 
some point, the United States would comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings, which had found that the United States had acted inconsiste ntly with Article 11.3 of the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement in the sunset review for OCTG from Mexico, because the determination issued by the 
USDOC that dumping was likely to continue or r ecur was not supported by reasoned and adequate 
conclusions based on the facts before it.  Given th at the measures subsequently adopted by the United 
States continued to fail to implement the DSB's r ecommendations and rulings, having, moreover, been 
adopted in breach of US obligations under Articl es 1 and 18.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and 
Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement, Mexico had b een compelled to request consultations with the 
United States.  These consultation had been held on 31 August 2006, but had not led to a satisfactory 
settlement.  In view of the above, Mexico had no alternative, but to reiterate the request for the 
establishment of a panel under Article 21.5 which had originally been formulated on 12 April 2007 and which had been circulated to Members, so that  at the present meeting, pursuant to paragraph 3 of 
the sequencing agreement set forth in document WT/DS282/12, the compliance panel requested by 
Mexico could be established. 
61. The representative of the United States
 said that his country was disappointed that Mexico 
was seeking the establishment of a panel.  Howe ver, pursuant to the understanding between the 
United States and Mexico, which had been ci rculated to the DSB Members in document 
WT/DS282/12, the United States would accept establishment of a panel at the present meeting.  As 
the United States had informed Mexico during c onsultations, the United States had complied fully 
with the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  The United States was confident that the panel would 
so agree.  
62. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed , pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU, to refer 
to the original Panel, if possible, the matter rai sed by Mexico in document WT/DS282/14.  The Panel 
would have standard terms of reference. WT/DSB/M/230 
Page 14  
 
  63. The representatives China
, the European Communities  and Japan  reserved their third-party 
rights to participate in the Panel's proceedings. 
6. Indicative list of governmental  and non-governmental panelists 
(a) Statement by the Chairman 
64. The Chairman  said that, as he had announced at the DSB meeting on 20 March 2007, at the 
present meeting he wished to make a statement re garding the need to update the indicative list of 
governmental and non-governmental panelists.  As Members were aware, in  accordance with the 
proposals for the administration of the indicative list of panelists, approved by the DSB on 31 May 1995 and contained in an annex to docum ent WT/DSB/33, the list should be updated every 
two years.  To this effect, Members were requi red to forward updated curricula vitae of persons 
appearing on the list as well as to provide any modi fications they wished to make to the list.  
Therefore, in line with the mentioned requirement , he asked delegations to submit updated curricula 
vitae of persons appearing on the current indica tive list, contained in documents WT/DSB/33 and 
Add.1 through Add.10, as well as to indicate any modifications they wished to make to the list.  He encouraged delegations to submit, to the extent po ssible, electronic versions of updated CVs together 
with hard copies.  Finally, he proposed that any modifications and updated CV s be forwarded to the 
Secretariat (Council & TNC Division) by the end of Ju ly 2007 so that an updated and consolidated list 
could be circulated after the Summer break.  
65. The representative of the United States
 said that it was his delegation's understanding that, as 
part of the revision of the indicative list, the Secretariat would be including the full names of individuals put forward by Members.  This would be  an improvement on the current list, increasing its 
utility to Members. 
66. The DSB took note
 of the statements.  
7. Integrated database of trade disputes re garding Latin America and the Caribbean 
(a) Statement by Chile 
67. The representative of Chile , speaking under "Other Business", said that his delegation wished 
to inform Members of a project developed by the Economic Commission for Latin America and the 
Caribbean (ECLAC), which was building up an in tegrated database of trade disputes for Latin 
America and the Caribbean (IDATD).  The databa se contained information on ongoing and settled 
trade disputes under the WTO, NAFTA, Andean Community, MERCOSUR, Central American Common Market, and CARICOM dispute settlement sy stems.  The purpose of this database was to 
provide simple, consolidated and up-to-date access to backgrounds of disputes throughout the course 
of the proceedings – from the initiatio n to the final compliance stage.  It consisted of a user-friendly 
and interactive electronic system that permitted multip le entries, cross-referencing and the automatic 
generation of charts on the information consulted, and provided an overall picture of trade disputes, 
allowing comparisons between procedural systems and case law in the different trade forums.  He 
noted that the database was available in Engl ish at http://idatd.eclac.cl and in Spanish at 
http://badicc.eclac.cl. 
68. The DSB took note
 of the statement.  WT/DSB/M/230 
 Page 15 
 
 
  8. Appointment of Appellate Body members 
(a) Statement by the Chairman 
69. The Chairman , speaking under "Other Business", said that as he had announced at the outset 
of the meeting, he wished to make a statement unde r "Other Business" regarding matters related to the 
process for selecting Appellate Body members.  He recalled that, under Article 17.2 of the DSU, "The 
DSB shall appoint persons to serve on the Appella te Body for a four-year term and each person may 
be reappointed once".  As Members were aware, on 10 December 2007, Ms. Merit Janow's first term 
of office would expire.  On the same date, Mr. Ya suhei Taniguchi's second and final term of office 
would expire.  In addition, on 31 May 2008, th e second and final terms of office of two other 
Appellate Body members, Messrs. Georges Abi-Saab and A.V. Ganesan, would expire.  In light of 
this, the DSB would, in the not too distant future, be  required to take certain actions with respect to 
these Appellate Body positions.  He said that, as a pr eliminary matter, it was his intention to consult 
with delegations as how best to proceed and, in particular, whether Members wished to carry out a 
single process regarding these Appellate Body positions .  To this effect, he intended to hold informal 
consultations in the first half of May with interest ed Members to hear their views in this regard.  
Based on the results to these consultations, it was hi s hope that he, as Chairman of the DSB, would be 
able to present, at the 22 May DSB meeting, a specific proposal regarding the procedures that 
Members should follow with respect to the positions  in question.  While he would be contacting a 
representative cross-section of the Membership himself,  he would also like to  invite any delegations 
wishing to provide views on this matter to contact hi m directly.  He asked if any delegation wished to 
say anything at this point on this matter.  He said that he looked forward to upcoming informal 
consultations and hoped to have a specific proposal fo r delegations at the next regular DSB meeting. 
70. The DSB took note  of the statement.  
 
__________