WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/DS/OV/7
21 June 2002
(02-3441)
Original:  English
UPDATE OF WTO DISPUTE SETTLEMENT CASES
NOTE : This summary has been prepared by the Secret ariat under its own responsibility.  The summary
is for general information only and is not intended to affect the rights and obligations of
Members.
NEW DEVELOPMENTS SINCE LAST UPDATE
(UP UNTIL 14 JUNE 2002)
WT/DS No. Short Title Action Section
WT/DS260 EC–Provisional Steel
Safeguards (US)Request for consultations
Request to join consultationsI
WT/DS259 US –Steel Safeguards
(Brazil)Request for consultations
Requests to join consultationsI
WT/DS258 US – Steel Safeguards
(New Zealand)Request for consultations
Requests to join consultationsI
WT/DS257 US – Softwood
LumberRequest for consultations I
WT/DS256 Turkey – Pet Food Request for consultations I
WT/DS255 Peru – Tax on
Imported ProductsRequest to join consultations I
WT/DS254 US – Steel Safeguards
(Norway)Request for the establishment of a
panelI
WT/DS253 US – Steel Safeguards
(Switzerland)Request for consultations
Request for the establishment of a
panelI
WT/DS252 US – Steel Safeguards
(China)Request for the establishment of a
panelI
WT/DS251 US – Steel Safeguards
(Korea)Request for the establishment of a
panelEstablishment of a PanelII
WT/DS249 US – Steel Safeguards
(Japan)Request for the establishment of a
panel
Establishment of a PanelII
WT/DS248 US – Steel Safeguards
(EC)Request for the establishment of a
panel
Establishment of a PanelII
WT/DS245 Japan – Apples Request for the establishment of a
panel
Establishment of a PanelII
WT/DS244 US – Corrosion-
resistant Steel Sunset
ReviewRequest for the establishment of
panel
Establishment of a PanelII
WT/DS243 US – Textiles Request for the establishment of a
panelIWT/DS/OV/7
Page ii
WT/DS No. Short Title Action Section
WT/DS231 EC – Sardines Suspension of panel proceedings
Circulation of Panel ReportII.A
WT/DS222 Canada – Aircraft
Credits and GuaranteesRequest for authorization of
countermeasuresVI
WT/DS146,
WT/DS175India – Autos Communication from India V.A
WT/DS141 EC – Bed Linen Request for the establishment of a
compliance panelVI
STATISTICAL OVERVIEW
Complaints
notified to the
WTO1Active
Panels2Appellate Body
and Panel Reports
Adopted3Mutually Agreed
SolutionsOther Settled
or Inactive4
Disputes
Reporting
period/
datesince 1.1.1995 on reporting
datesince 1.1.1995 since 1.1.1995 since 1.1.1995
Number 260 21 60 35 23
EXPLANATORY NOTES:
1 This category encompasses all requests for consultations  notified to the WTO, including those requests which
have led to panel and appellate review proceedings.  
2 This category encompasses pending or suspended panel proceedings or appellate review proceedings, with the
exception of proceedings pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU.
3 This category does not include reports resulting from proceedings pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU.
4 This category includes cases where the contested measure has been terminated, a panel request was withdrawn,
etc.
Active
Compliance
Panels1Adopted Appellate
Body and Panel
Compliance
Reports2Arbitrations on
Level of
Suspension of
Concessions3WTO
Authorizations
of Suspension of
Concessions4
Reporting
period/
dateon reporting date on reporting date on reporting date on reporting date
Number 11 0 5 5
EXPLANATORY NOTES:
1 This category encompasses pending or suspended panel or appellate review proceedings pursuant to Article 21.5
of the DSU.
2 This category includes reports resulting from proceedings under Article 21.5 of the DSU.
3 This category covers arbitration proceedings pursuant to Article 22.6 and 22.7 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the
Subsidies Agreement.
4 This category covers authorizations granted by the WT O pursuant to Article 22.7 of the DSU and Article 4.10 of
the Subsidies Agreement.WT/DS/OV/7
Page iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. PENDING CONSULTATIONS (most recent listed first).....................................................1
1. WT/DS260 – European Communities – Provisional Safeguard Measures on Imports
of Certain Steel Products ...............................................................................................1
2. WT/DS259 –United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain
Steel Pro ducts ................................................................................................................2
3. WT/DS258 –United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain
Steel Pro ducts ................................................................................................................3
2. WT/DS257 – United States – Final Countervailing Duty Determination with respect
to Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada....................................................................4
3. WT/DS256 – Turkey – Import Ban on Pet Food from Hungary ...................................5
4. WT/DS255 - Peru– Tax Treatment on Certain Imported Products ...............................5
5. WT/DS254 – United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain
Steel Pro ducts ................................................................................................................6
6. WT/DS253 – United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain
Steel Pro ducts ................................................................................................................7
7. WT/DS252 – United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain
Steel Pro ducts ................................................................................................................8
8. WT/DS250 – United States – Equalizing Excise Tax Imposed by Florida on
Processed Orange and Gr apefruit Products ...................................................................9
9. WT/DS247 – United States – Provisional Anti-Dumping Measure on Imports of
Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada......................................................................10
10. WT/DS246 – European Communities – Conditions for the Granting of Tariff
Preferences to Devel oping Countries...........................................................................11
11. WT/DS243 – United States – Rules of Orig in for Textiles and Apparel Products......12
12. WT/DS242 – European Communities – Generalized System of Preferences .............12
13. WT/DS239 - United States – Anti-dumping Duties on Silicon Metal from Brazil .....13
14. WT/DS237 – Turkey – Certain Impor t Procedures for Fresh Fruits ...........................13
15. WT/DS233 – Argentina – Measures Affecting the Import of Pharmaceutical Products14
16. WT/DS232 – Mexico – Measures Af fecting the Import of Matches...........................14
17. WT/DS230 – Chile – Safeguard Measures and Modification of Schedules regarding
Sugar .......................................................................................................................... ..15
18. WT/DS229 – Brazil – Anti-Dumping Duties on Jute Bags from India .......................15
19. WT/DS226 – Chile – Provisional Safeguard Measure on Mixtures of Edible Oils.....16
20. WT/DS225 – United States – Anti-dumping duties on Seamless Pipe from Italy.......16
21. WT/DS224 – United States – US Patents Code...........................................................17
22. WT/DS223 – European Communities – Tariff-Rate Quota on Corn Gluten Feed from
the United States ..........................................................................................................18
23. WT/DS220 – Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard Measures relating to Certain
Agricultural Products...................................................................................................18
24. WT/DS218 – United States- Countervailing  Duties on Certain Carbon Steel Products
from Braz il...................................................................................................................1 9
25. WT/DS216 – Mexico – Provisional Anti-Dumping Measure on Electric Transformers19
26. WT/DS215 – Philippines – Anti-Dumping Measures regarding Polypropylene Resins
from Korea...................................................................................................................20
27. WT/DS209 – European Communities – Measures Affecting Soluble Coffee.............20
28. WT/DS208 – Turkey – Anti-Dumping Duty on Steel and Iron Pipe Fittings .............2129. WT/DS205 – Egypt - Import Prohibition on Canned Tuna with Soybean Oil ............21
30. WT/DS203 – Mexico – Measures Affecting Trade in Live Swine..............................21
31. WT/DS201 – Nicaragua – Measures Affecting Imports from Honduras and
Colombia (II) ...............................................................................................................22WT/DS/OV/7
Page iv
32. WT/DS200 – United States – Section 306 of the Trade Act of 1974 and Amendments
Thereto........................................................................................................................ .23
33. WT/DS197 – Brazil – Measures  on Minimum Im port Pric es .....................................23
34. WT/DS196 – Argentina – Certain Measures on the Protection of Patents and Test
Data........................................................................................................................... ...23
35. WT/DS191 – Ecuador – Definitive Anti-Dum ping Measure on Cement from Mexico24
36. WT/DS187 – Trinidad and Tobago – Provisional Anti-Dumping Measure on
Macaroni and Spaghet ti from Cost a Rica ....................................................................24
37. WT/DS186 – United States – Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 and Amendments
Thereto........................................................................................................................ .24
38. WT/DS185 – Trinidad and Tobago – Certain Measures Affecting Imports of Pasta
from Costa Rica ...........................................................................................................25
39. WT/DS183 – Brazil – Measures on Import Licensing and Minimum Import Prices ..25
40. WT/DS182 – Ecuador – Provisional Anti-D umping Measure on Cement from Mexico25
41. WT/DS180 – United States – Reclassification of Certain Sugar Syrups.....................25
42. WT/DS174 – European Communities – Protection of Trademarks and Geographical
Indications for Agricultural  Products and Foodstuffs..................................................26
43. WT/DS172 – European Communities – Measures Relating to the Development of a
Flight Manageme nt System .........................................................................................26
44. WT/DS173 – France – Measures Relating to the Development of a Flight
Management System....................................................................................................26
45. WT/DS171 – Argentina – Patent Protection for Pharmaceuticals and Test Data
Protection for Agricult ural Chemicals.........................................................................26
46. WT/DS168 – South Africa – Anti-dumping Duties on the Import of Certain
Pharmaceutical Products  from India............................................................................27
47. WT/DS167 – United States – Countervailing Duty Investigation with respect to Live
Cattle from  Canada ......................................................................................................28
48. WT/DS159 – Hungary – Safeguard Measure on Imports of Steel Products from the
Czech Republic............................................................................................................28
49. WT/DS158 – European Communities - Regime for the Importation, Sale and
Distribution of Bananas II............................................................................................28
50. WT/DS157 – Argentina – Anti-Dumping Measures  on Imports of Drill Bits from
Italy .......................................................................................................................... ....29
51. WT/DS154 – European Communities – Measures Affecting Differential and
Favourable Treatm ent of Coffee..................................................................................29
52. WT/DS153 – European Communities – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and
Agricultural Products...................................................................................................29
53. WT/DS150 – India – Measures Affecting Cust om Duties ..........................................29
54. WT/DS149 – India – Im port Restri ctions....................................................................30
55. WT/DS148 – Czech Re public – Measure Affecting Import Duty on Wheat from
Hungary .......................................................................................................................3 0
56. WT/DS147 – Japan – Tariff Quotas and Subsidies Affe cting Leather........................30
57. WT/DS145 – Argentina – Countervailing Du ties on Imports of Wheat Gluten from
the European Communities..........................................................................................31
58. WT/DS144 – United States – Certain Measures Affecting the Import of Cattle, Swine
and Grain from Canada................................................................................................31
59. WT/DS143 - Slovak Re public – Measure Affecting Import Duty on Wheat from
Hungary .......................................................................................................................3 1
60. WT/DS140 – European Communities – Anti-Dumping Investigations Regarding
Unbleached Cotton Fabrics from India........................................................................31
61. WT/DS137 – European Communities – Measures Affecting Imports of Wood of
Conifers from Canada..................................................................................................32
62. WT/DS134 – European Communities - Measures Affecting Import Duties on Rice..32WT/DS/OV/7
Page v
63. WT/DS133 – Slovak Republic - Measures Concerning the Importation of Dairy
Products and the Tran sit of Ca ttle................................................................................32
64. WT/DS131 – France - Certain Income Tax Measures Constituting Subsidies............32
65. WT/DS130 – Ireland - Certain Income Tax Measures Constituting Subsidies ...........33
66. WT/DS129 – Greece - Certain Income Tax Measures Constituting Subsidies ...........3367. WT/DS128 – Netherlands - Certain Income Tax Measures Constituting Subsidies ...33
68. WT/DS127 – Belgium - Certain Income Tax Measures Constituting Subsidies.........33
69. WT/DS123 – Argentina - Safeguard Me asures on Imports of Footwear.....................33
70. WT/DS120 – India - Measures Affecting Export of Certain Commodities.................34
71. WT/DS118 – United States - Harbour Maintenance Tax ............................................34
72. WT/DS117 – Canada - Measures Affecting Film Distribution Services.....................34
73. WT/DS116 – Brazil - Measures Affecting Payment Terms for Imports .....................3474. WT/DS115 – European Communities - Measures Affecting the Grant of Copyright
and Neighbouring Rights.............................................................................................34
75. WT/DS112 – Peru - Countervailing Duty In vestigation against Imports of Buses from
Brazil......................................................................................................................... ...34
76. WT/DS111 – United States - Tariff Rate Quota for Imports of Groundnuts...............3577. WT/DS109 – Chile - Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages ..................................................35
78. WT/DS107 – Pakistan - Export Measures Affecting Hides and Skins........................35
79. WT/DS105 – European Communities - Regime for the Importation, Sale and
Distribution of Bananas ...............................................................................................35
80. WT/DS104 – European Communities - Measures Affecting the Exportation of
Processed Cheese.........................................................................................................35
81. WT/DS100 – United States - Measures Affecting Imports of Poultry Products .........35
82. WT/DS97 – United States - Countervailing Duty Investigation of Imports of Salmon
from Chile....................................................................................................................3 6
83. WT/DS82 – Ireland - Measures Affecting the Grant of Copyright and Neighbouring
Rights......................................................................................................................... ..36
84. WT/DS81 – Brazil - Measures Affecting Trade and Investment in the Automotive
Sector ......................................................................................................................... ..36
85. WT/DS80 – Belgium - Measures Affecting Commercial Telephone Directory
Services....................................................................................................................... .36
86. WT/DS78 – United States - Safeguard Measure Against Imports of Broom Corn
Brooms......................................................................................................................... 36
87. WT/DS71 – Canada - Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft.................37
88. WT/DS66 – Japan - Measures Affecting Imports of Pork...........................................37
89. WT/DS65 – Brazil - Certain Measures Affecting Trade and Investment in the
Automotive Sector .......................................................................................................37
90. WT/DS63 – United States - Anti-Dumping Measures on Imports of Solid Urea from
the Former German De mocratic Republic...................................................................37
91. WT/DS61 – United States - Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp
Products ....................................................................................................................... 37
92. WT/DS53 – Mexico - Customs Valuation of Imports .................................................37
93. WT/DS52 – Brazil - Certain Measures Affecting Trade and Investment in the
Automotive Sector .......................................................................................................38
94. WT/DS51 – Brazil - Certain Au tomotive Investme nt Measures .................................38
95. WT/DS47 – Turkey - Restrictions on Impor ts of Textile and Clothing Products .......38
96. WT/DS45 – Japan - Measures Affecting Distribution Services ..................................38
97. WT/DS41 – Korea - Measures Concerning Inspection of Agricultural Products........3898. WT/DS30 – Brazil - Countervailing Duties  on Imports of Desiccated Coconut and
Coconut Milk Powder from Sri Lanka.........................................................................38
99. WT/DS29 – Turkey - Restrictions on Impor ts of Textile and Clothing Products .......39
100. WT/DS3 – Korea - Measures Concerning the Testing and Inspection of Agricultural
Products ....................................................................................................................... 39WT/DS/OV/7
Page vi
II. ACTIVE PAN ELS ............................................................................................................... ...39
A. A CTIVE PANELS ........................................................................................................................39
1. WT/DS164 – Argentina – Measures Affecting Imports of Footwear..........................39
2. WT/DS188 – Nicaragua – Measures Affecting Imports from Honduras and Colombia
(I) ............................................................................................................................ .....39
3. WT/DS195 – Philippines – Measures Affecting Trade and Investment in the Motor
Vehicle Sector..............................................................................................................40
4. WT/DS204 – Mexico – Measures Affecting Telecommunications Services ..............40
5. WT/DS206 – United States – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Measures on Steel
Plate From India...........................................................................................................41
6. WT/DS211– Egypt – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Steel Rebar from
Turkey......................................................................................................................... .42
7. WT/DS212 – United States – Countervailing Measures concerning Certain Products
from the European  Communities.................................................................................42
8. WT/DS213 – United States – Countervailing Duties on Certain Corrosion-Resistant
Carbon Steel Flat Produ cts from Germany..................................................................43
9. WT/DS214 – United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Steel
Wire Rod and Circular Welded Carbon Quality Line Pipe .........................................44
10. WT/DS217 – United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 .45
11. WT/DS219 – European Communities – Anti-dumping duties on malleable cast iron
tube or pipe fittin gs from Brazil...................................................................................46
12. WT/DS221 – United States – Section 129(c)(1) of the Uruguay Round Agreements
Act............................................................................................................................ ....47
13. WT/DS234 – United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 .47
14. WT/DS236 - United States – Preliminary De terminations with respect to Certain
Softwood Lumber from Canada...................................................................................49
15. WT/DS238 - Argentina – Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Preserved
Peaches ........................................................................................................................ 49
16. WT/DS241 - Argentina – Definitive Anti-Dumping Duties on Poultry from Brazil ..50
17. WT/DS244 - United States – Sunset Review of Anti-dumping Duties on Corrosion-
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat  Products from Japan ........................................................51
18. WT/DS245 – Japan – Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples ........................53
19. WT/DS248 – United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain
Steel Pro ducts ..............................................................................................................54
20. WT/DS249 – United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain
Steel Pro ducts ..............................................................................................................55
21. WT/DS251 – United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain
Steel Pro ducts ..............................................................................................................56
B. A CTIVE COMPLIANCE PANELS ..................................................................................................58
1. WT/DS103/RW/2 and WT/D S113/RW/2 – Canada - Measures Affecting the
Importation of Milk and the E xportation of Dairy Products........................................58
2. WT/DS141/RW – European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of
Cotton-Type Bed Line from India ...............................................................................58
III. REPORTS CI RCULATED ....................................................................................................60
A. PANEL RE PORTS ................................................................................................................ ...60
1. WT/DS207 – Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard Measures relating to Certain
Agricultural Products...................................................................................................60
2. WT/DS231 – European Communities – Trade Description of Sardines .....................61
B. COMPLIANCE PANEL RE PORTS (ARTICLE 21.5)............................................................62
C. APPELLATE B ODY REPORT S .............................................................................................62WT/DS/OV/7
Page vii
D. APPELLATE BODY COMPLIANC E REPORTS (A RTICLE 21.5)......................................62
IV. REPORTS APPEALED .........................................................................................................62
A. PANEL RE PORTS ................................................................................................................ ...62
B. COMPLIANCE PANEL RE PORTS (ARTICLE 21.5)............................................................62
V. COMPLETED PANEL AND APPE LLATE BODY REVIEW .........................................62
A. APPELLATE BODY AND PAN EL REPORTS ADOPTED ..................................................62
1. WT/DS2 and WT/DS4 – United States - Standards for Reformulated and
Conventional Gasoline.................................................................................................62
2. WT/DS8, WT/DS10 and WT /DS11 – Japan - Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages ...........63
3. WT/DS18 – Australia - Measures Affecting the Importation of Salmon ....................63
4. WT/DS22 – Brazil - Measures Affecting Desiccated Coconut ...................................64
5. WT/DS24 – United States - Restrictions on Imports of Cotton and Man-Made Fibre
Underwear....................................................................................................................64
6. WT/DS26 – European Communities - Measures Affecting Meat and Meat Products
(Hormones) ..................................................................................................................64
7. WT/DS27 – European Communities - Regime for the Importation, Sale and
Distribution of Bananas ...............................................................................................65
8. WT/DS31 – Canada - Certain Meas ures Concerning Periodicals ...............................65
9. WT/DS33 – United States - Measure Affecting Imports of Woven Wool Shirts and
Blouses........................................................................................................................ .66
10. WT/DS34 – Turkey - Restrictions on Impor ts of Textile and Clothing Products .......66
11. WT/DS44 – Japan - Measures Affecting Consumer Photographic Film and Paper....6712. WT/DS46 – Brazil - Export Fina ncing Programme for Aircraft .................................68
13. WT/DS48 – European Communities - Measures Affecting Livestock and Meat
(Hormones) ..................................................................................................................68
14. WT/DS50 – India - Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical
Products ....................................................................................................................... 69
15. WT/DS54, WT/DS55, WT/DS59 and WT /DS64 – Indonesia - Certain Measures
Affecting the Autom obile Industry..............................................................................69
16. WT/DS56 – Argentina - Certain Measures Affecting Imports of Footwear, Textiles,
Apparel and Other Items..............................................................................................70
17. WT/DS58 – United States - Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp
Products ....................................................................................................................... 71
18. WT/DS60 – Guatemala - Anti-Dumping Investigation Regarding Imports of Portland
Cement from Mexico...................................................................................................71
19. WT/DS62, WT/DS67 and WT/DS68 – European Communities - Customs
Classification of Certain Computer Equipment...........................................................72
20. WT/DS69 – European Communities - Measures Affecting Importation of Certain
Poultry Products...........................................................................................................72
21. WT/DS70 – Canada - Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft.................73
22. WT/DS75 and WT/DS84 – Korea - Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages...........................73
23. WT/DS76 – Japan - Measures Affecting Agricultural Products..................................74
24. WT/DS79 – India - Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical
Products ....................................................................................................................... 74
25. WT/DS87 and WT/DS110 – Chile - Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages ..........................75
26. WT/DS90 – India - Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and
Industrial Pr oducts .......................................................................................................75
27. WT/DS98 – Korea - Definitive Safeguar d Measure on Imports of Certain Dairy
Products ....................................................................................................................... 76
28. WT/DS99 – United States - Anti-Dumping Duty on Dynamic Random Access
Memory Semiconductors (DRAMS) of One Megabit or Above from Korea .............77WT/DS/OV/7
Page viii
29. WT/DS103 and WT/DS113 – Canada - Meas ures Affecting the Importation of Milk
and the Exportation of Dairy Products.........................................................................77
30. WT/DS108 – United States - Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations" .........78
31. WT/DS114 – Canada - Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products .......................79
32. WT/DS121 - Argentina - Safeguard M easures on Imports of Footwear .....................80
33. WT/DS122 – Thailand - Anti-Dumping Duties on Angles, Shapes and Sections of
Iron or Non-Alloy Steel and H-Beams from Poland....................................................80
34. WT/DS126 – Australia - Subsidies Prov ided to Producers and Exporters of
Automotive L eather .....................................................................................................82
35. WT/DS132 – Mexico - Anti-Dumping Investigation of High-Fructose Corn Syrup
(HFCS) from the United States....................................................................................82
36. WT/DS135 – European Communities - Measures Affecting the Prohibition of
Asbestos and Asbestos Products..................................................................................83
37. WT/DS136 – United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 ..........................................84
38. WT/DS138 – United States – Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Certain Hot-
Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products Originating in the United Kingdom85
39. WT/DS139 and WT/DS142 – Canada – Cert ain Measures Affecting the Automotive
Industry ....................................................................................................................... .85
40. WT/DS141 – European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Cotton-
Type Bed-Linen from India .........................................................................................86
41. WT/DS146 and WT/DS175 – India - Measur es Affecting the Automotive Sector.....88
42. WT/DS152 – United States – Sections 301-310 of the Trade Act of 1974 .................9043. WT/DS155 – Argentina - Measures on the Export of Bovine Hides and the Import of
Finished Leather ..........................................................................................................90
44. WT/DS156 – Guatemala - Definitive Anti-dumping Measure regarding Grey Portland
Cement from Mexico...................................................................................................91
45. WT/DS160 – United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act......................9246. WT/DS161 and WT/DS169 – Korea – Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled,
and Frozen Beef...........................................................................................................93
47. WT/DS162 – United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 ..........................................95
48. WT/DS163 – Korea – Measures Affecting Government Procurement ........................96
49. WT/DS165 – United States – Import Measures on Certain Products from the
European Communities................................................................................................97
50. WT/DS166 – United States – Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Wheat
Gluten from the Euro pean Communities .....................................................................98
51. WT/DS170 – Canada – Patent Protection Term........................................................100
52. WT/DS176 – United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act .................101
53. WT/DS177 and WT/DS178 – United States – Safeguard Measure on Imports of
Fresh, Chilled or Frozen La mb from New Zealand...................................................102
54. WT/DS179 – United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Stainless Steel Plate in
Coils and Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from Korea ...............................................104
55. WT/DS184 – United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel
Products from Japan...................................................................................................105
56. WT/DS189 – Argentina – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Imports of Ceramic
Floor Tiles fr om Italy.................................................................................................106
57. WT/DS192 – United States – Transitional Safeguard Measure on Combed Cotton
Yarn from Pakistan ....................................................................................................107
58. WT/DS194 – United States – Measures Treating Export Restraints As Subsidies ...108
59. WT/DS202 – United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Circular
Welded Carbon Quality Line Pipe.............................................................................109
60. WT/DS222 – Canada – Export Credits and Loan Guarantees for Regional Aircraft 111
B. APPELLATE BODY AND PANEL COMPLIANCE REPORTS (ARTICLE 21.5)
ADOPTED........................................................................................................................ ......112WT/DS/OV/7
Page ix
1. WT/DS18/RW – Australia - Measures Affecting the Importation of Salmon...........112
2. WT/DS27/RW – European Communities - Regime for the Importation, Sale and
Distribution of Bananas .............................................................................................113
3. WT/DS46/RW and WT/DS46/RW/2 – Braz il - Export Financing Programme for
Aircraft....................................................................................................................... 113
4. WT/DS58/RW – United States - Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp
Products .....................................................................................................................11 4
5. WT/DS70/RW – Canada - Measures Affec ting the Export of Civilian Aircraft .......115
6. WT/DS99/RW – United States – Anti-Dumping Duty on Dynamic Random Access
Memory Semiconductors (DRAMS) of One Megabit or Above from Korea ...........116
7. WT/DS103/RW and WT/DS113 /RW – Canada - Measures Affecting the Importation
of Milk and the Exportatio n of Dairy Products .........................................................116
8. WT/DS108/RW – United States – Tax Trea tment for "Foreign Sales Corporations"117
9. WT/DS126/RW – Australia – Subsidies Provided to Producers and Exporters of
Automotive Leather ...................................................................................................117
10. WT/DS132/RW – Mexico - Anti-Dumping Investigation of High-Fructose Corn
Syrup (HFCS) from the United States .......................................................................118
VI. IMPLEMENTATION STATUS OF ADOPTED REPORTS...........................................118
1. WT/DS2 and WT/DS4 – United States - Standards for Reformulated and
Conventional Gasoline...............................................................................................119
2. WT/DS8, WT/DS10 and WT /DS11 – Japan - Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages .........119
3. WT/DS18 – Australia - Measures Affecting the Importation of Salmon ..................1194. WT/DS24 – United States - Restrictions on Imports of Cotton and Man-Made Fibre
Underwear..................................................................................................................119
5. WT/DS26 and WT/DS48 – European Communities - Measures Affecting Meat and
Meat Products (Hormones)........................................................................................120
6. WT/DS27 – European Communities - Regime for the Importation, Sale and
Distribution of Bananas .............................................................................................120
7. WT/DS31 – Canada - Certain Meas ures Concerning Periodicals .............................124
8. WT/DS33 – United States - Measure Affecting Imports of Woven Wool Shirts and
Blouses.......................................................................................................................1 24
9. WT/DS34 – Turkey – Restrictions on Impor ts of Textile and Clothing Products.....124
10. WT/DS46 – Brazil - Export Fina ncing Programme for Aircraft ...............................125
11. WT/DS50 – India - Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical
Products .....................................................................................................................12 6
12. WT/DS54, WT/DS55, WT/DS59 and WT /DS64 – Indonesia - Certain Measures
Affecting the Autom obile Industry............................................................................126
13. WT/DS56 – Argentina - Certain Measures Affecting Imports of Footwear, Textiles,
Apparel and Other Items............................................................................................127
14. WT/DS58 – United States - Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp
Products .....................................................................................................................12 7
15. WT/DS69 – European Communities - Measures Affecting Importation of Certain
Poultry Products.........................................................................................................127
16. WT/DS70 – Canada - Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft...............12817. WT/DS75 and WT/DS84 - Korea – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages.........................128
18. WT/DS76 – Japan - Measures Affecting Agricultural Products................................128
19. WT/DS79 – India - Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical
Products .....................................................................................................................12 9
20. WT/DS87 and WT/DS110– Chile – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages ........................12921. WT/DS90 – India - Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and
Industrial Pr oducts .....................................................................................................129
22. WT/DS98 – Korea - Definitive Safeguar d Measure on Imports of Certain Dairy
Products .....................................................................................................................13 0WT/DS/OV/7
Page x
23. WT/DS99 – United States - Anti-Dumping Duty on Dynamic Random Access
Memory Semiconductors (DRAMS) of One Megabit or Above from Korea ...........130
24. WT/DS103 and WT/DS113 – Canada - Meas ures Affecting the Importation of Milk
and the Exportation of Dairy Products.......................................................................131
25. WT/DS108 – United States - Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations" .......13126. WT/DS114 – Canada - Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products .....................132
27. WT/DS121 – Argentina - Safeguard Me asures on Imports of Footwear...................132
28. WT/DS122 – Thailand - Anti-Dumping Duties on Angles, Shapes and Sections of
Iron or Non-Alloy Steel and H-Beams from Poland..................................................132
29. WT/DS126 – Australia - Subsidies Prov ided to Producers and Exporters of
Automotive Leather ...................................................................................................133
30. WT/DS132 – Mexico - Anti-Dumping Investigation of High-Fructose Corn Syrup
(HFCS) from the United States..................................................................................133
31. WT/DS136 and WT/DS162 – United States - Anti-Dumping Act of 1916...............134
32. WT/DS138 – United States – Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Certain Hot-
Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products Originating in the United Kingdom135
33. WT/DS139 and WT/DS142 – Canada – Cert ain Measures Affecting the Automotive
Industry ......................................................................................................................1 35
34. WT/DS141 – European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Cotton-
Type Bed-Linen from India .......................................................................................135
35. WT/DS146 and WT/DS175 – India - Measur es Affecting the Automotive Sector...136
36. WT/DS155 – Argentina - Measures on the Export of Bovine Hides and the Import of
Finished Leather ........................................................................................................136
37. WT/DS156 – Guatemala - Definitive Anti-dumping Measure regarding Grey Portland
Cement from Mexico.................................................................................................137
38. WT/DS160 – United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act....................137
39. WT/DS161 and WT/DS169 Korea – Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled,
and Frozen Beef.........................................................................................................138
40. WT/DS166 – United States – Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Wheat
Gluten from the Euro pean Communities ...................................................................138
41. WT/DS170 – Canada – Patent Protection Term........................................................138
42. WT/DS176 – United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act .................138
43. WT/DS177 and WT/DS178 – United States – Safeguard Measure on Imports of
Fresh, Chilled or Frozen La mb from New Zealand...................................................139
44. WT/DS179 – United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Stainless Steel Plate in
Coils and Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from Korea ...............................................139
45. WT/DS184 – United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel
Products from Japan...................................................................................................139
46. WT/DS189 – Argentina – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Imports of Ceramic
Floor Tiles fr om Italy.................................................................................................139
47. WT/DS192 – United States – Transitional Safeguard Measure on Combed Cotton
Yarn from Pakistan ....................................................................................................140
48. WT/DS202 – United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Circular
Welded Carbon Quality Line Pipe.............................................................................140
49. WT/DS222 – Canada – Export Credits and Loan Guarantees for Regional Aircraft 140
VII. SETTLED OR INACTIVE CASES ....................................................................................141
A. MUTUALLY AGREED  SOLUTI ONS..................................................................................141
1. WT/DS5 – Korea - Measures Concerning the Shelf-life of Products........................141
2. WT/DS6 – United States - Imposition of Import Duties on Automobiles from Japan
under Sections 301 and 304 of  the Trade Act of 1974...............................................141
3. WT/DS7, WT/DS12 and WT/DS14 – European Communities - Trade Description of
Scallops......................................................................................................................1 41
4. WT/DS19 – Poland - Import Re gime for Automobiles .............................................141WT/DS/OV/7
Page xi
5. WT/DS20 – Korea - Measures Concerning Bottled Water........................................141
6. WT/DS21 – Australia - Measures Affecting the Importation of Salmonids..............141
7. WT/DS28 – Japan - Measures Concerning Sound Recordings .................................142
8. WT/DS35 – Hungary - Export Subsidies in Respect of Agricultural Products .........142
9. WT/DS36 – Pakistan - Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural
Chemical Pr oducts .....................................................................................................142
10. WT/DS37 – Portugal - Patent Protection  under the Industrial Property Act ............143
11. WT/DS40 – Korea - Laws, Regulations and Practices in the Telecommunications
Sector ......................................................................................................................... 143
12. WT/DS42 – Japan - Measures Concerning Sound Recordings .................................143
13. WT/DS43 – Turkey - Taxation of Foreign Film  Revenues .......................................143
14. WT/DS72 – European Communities - Measures Affecting Butter Products ............14315. WT/DS73 – Japan - Procurement of a Navigation Satellite ......................................143
16. WT/DS74 – Philippines - Measures  Affecting Pork and Poultry ..............................144
17. WT/DS83 – Denmark - Measures Affecting the Enforcement of Intellectual Property
Rights......................................................................................................................... 144
18. WT/DS85 – United States - Measures Affecting Textiles and Apparel Products .....14419. WT/DS86 – Sweden - Measures Affecting the Enforcement of Intellectual Property
Rights......................................................................................................................... 144
20. WT/DS91 – India - Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and
Industrial Pr oducts .....................................................................................................145
21. WT/DS92 – India - Quantitative Restrictions  on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and
Industrial Pr oducts .....................................................................................................145
22. WT/DS93 – India - Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and
Industrial Pr oducts .....................................................................................................145
23. WT/DS94 – India - Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and
Industrial Pr oducts .....................................................................................................145
24. WT/DS96 – India - Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and
Industrial Pr oducts .....................................................................................................145
25. WT/DS99 – United States - Anti-Dumping Duty on Dynamic Random Access
Memory Semiconductors (DRAMS) of One Megabit or Above from Korea ...........145
26. WT/DS102 – Philippines - Measures Affecting Pork and Poultry ............................146
27. WT/DS119 – Australia - Anti-dumping Measures on Imports of Coated Woodfree
Paper Sh eets...............................................................................................................146
28. WT/DS124 – European Communities - Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights
for Motion Pictures and Television Programs ...........................................................146
29. WT/DS125 – Greece - Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights for Motion
Pictures and Televi sion Programs..............................................................................146
30. WT/DS151 – United States - Measures Affecting Textiles and Apparel Products ...14731. WT/DS190 – Argentina – Transitional Safeguard Measures on Certain Imports of
Woven Fabrics of Cotton and Cotton Mixtures Originating in Brazil.......................147
32. WT/DS198 – Romania – Measures on Minimum Import Prices...............................147
33. WT/DS199 – Brazil – Measures Affecting Patent Protection ....................................148
34. WT/DS210 – Belgium – Administration of Measures Establishing Customs Duties
for Rice ......................................................................................................................1 48
35. WT/DS235 - Slovakia – Safeguard Measure on Imports of Sugar............................149
B. OTHE RS....................................................................................................................... ..........150
1. WT/DS1 – Malaysia - Prohibition of Impor ts of Polyethylene and Polypropylene ..150
2. WT/DS9 – European Communities - Duties on Imports of Cereals..........................150
3. WT/DS13 – European Communities - Duties on Imports of Grains .........................150
4. WT/DS15 – Japan - Measures Affecting the Purchase of Telecommunications
Equipment..................................................................................................................150
5. WT/DS17 – European Communities - Duties on Imports of Rice ............................150WT/DS/OV/7
Page xii
6. WT/DS23 – Venezuela - Anti-Dumping Investigation in Respect of Imports of
Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods (OCTG)............................................................151
7. WT/DS25 – European Communities - Implementation of the Uruguay Round
Commitments Concerning Rice.................................................................................151
8. WT/DS32 – United States - Measures Affecting Imports of Women's and Girls' Wool
Coats .......................................................................................................................... 151
9. WT/DS38 – United States - The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act ......151
10. WT/DS39 – United States - Tariff Increases on Products from the European
Communities..............................................................................................................151
11. WT/DS49 – United States - Anti-Dumping Investigation Regarding Imports of Fresh
or Chilled Tomatoes  from Mexico.............................................................................152
12. WT/DS57 – Australia - Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Import Credit Scheme .....15213. WT/DS77 – Argentina - Measures Affecting Textiles and Clothing.........................152
14. WT/DS88 – United States - Measure Affecting Government Procurement..............152
15. WT/DS89 – United States - Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Colour Television
Receivers from Korea ................................................................................................153
16. WT/DS95 – United States - Measure Affecting Government Procurement..............15317. WT/DS101 – Mexico - Anti-Dumping Investigation of High-Fructose Corn Syrup
(HFCS) from the United States..................................................................................153
18. WT/DS106 – Australia - Subsidies Prov ided to Producers and Exporters of
Automotive Leather ...................................................................................................153
19. WT/DS181 – Colombia – Safeguard Measure on Imports of Plain Polyester Filaments
from Thailand ............................................................................................................153
20. WT/DS193 - Chile – Measures Affecting the Transit and Importation of Swordfish154
21. WT/DS227 – Peru – Taxes on Cigarettes..................................................................154
22. WT/DS228 – Chile – Safeguard Measures on Sugar.................................................155
23. WT/DS240 - Romania – Import Prohibition on Wheat and Wheat Flour .................155WT/DS/OV/7
Page 1
I. PENDING CONSULTATIONS (most recent listed first)
1. WT/DS260 – European Communities – Provisional Safeguard Measures on Imports of
Certain Steel Products
Complaint by the United Stated.  On 30 May 2002, the United States requested consultations
with the European Communities with regard to the provisional safeguard measures imposedby the European Communities on imports of certain steel products, pursuant to Commission
Regulation (EC) No 560/2002 of 27 March 2002 (OJ L 85/1, 28 March 2002) as well as any
amendments thereto or extensions thereof, and any related measures.
The United States contended that these measures appear to be inconsistent with the European
Communities' obligations under the provisions of GATT 1994 and of the Agreement on
Safeguards .  In particular, the United States believed that the measures are inconsistent withat least the following provisions:
• Article 6 of the Agreement on Safeguards, in conjunction with Articles 2.1, 4.1 and 4.2
of the Agreement on Safeguards and Article XIX of the GATT 1994, which permits thetaking of a provisional safeguard measure only pursuant to a preliminary determination
that there is clear evidence that increased imports have caused or are threatening to causeserious injury to the domestic industry that produces like or directly competitive
products.
• Article 6 of the Agreement on Safeguards and Article XIX of the GATT 1994, which
provide that Members may take provisional safeguard measures only in criticalcircumstances, where delay would cause damage which it would be difficult to repair.
• Articles 3 and 6 of the Agreement on Safeguards, which, inter alia,   (1) require that any
provisional safeguard measure be taken only pursuant to a preliminary determination
based on clear evidence; (2) require that any safeguard measure be taken only following
an investigation by the competent authorities of the Member pursuant to procedures
previously established and made public in consonance with Article X of the GATT 1994;
(3) require notice and opportunity for all interested parties to be heard; and (4) require
the publication of a report setting forth findings and reasoned conclusions reached on allpertinent issues of fact and law.
• Article 12.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards , which requires Members immediately to
notify the Committee on Safeguards upon (a) initiating an investigation relating to
serious injury or threat thereof and the reasons for it, (b) upon making a finding of
serious injury or threat thereof caused by increased imports, and (c) taking a decision to
apply or extend a safeguard measure.
• Article 2.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, and Article I of the GATT 1994, by
applying its safeguard measures to the goods of some WTO Members, while excludingthe goods of other countries whose territories are not part of a free trade area or a
customs union and who are not developing country WTO Members.
• Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994, which allows a WTO Member to impose a
safeguard measure only if, as a result of unforeseen developments, a product is being
imported in such increased quantities and under such conditions as to cause or threatenserious injury to domestic producers of the like or directly competitive products.
On 7 June 2002, Japan requested to join the consultations.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 2
2. WT/DS259 –United States – Definitive Safe guard Measures on Imports of Certain Steel
Products
Complaint by Brazil.  On 21 May 2002, Brazil requested consultations with the United States
with regard to the definitive safeguard measures imposed by the United States on imports of
certain steel products published in the Proclamation 7529, dated 5 March 2002 (FederalRegister Vol. 67, No 45 of 7 March 2002).
Brazil considered that the safeguard measures imposed by the United States may be in breach
of the US obligations under the provisions of the Agreement on Safeguards, the GATT 1994
and the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the WTO, in particular, but not necessarily
exclusively, of:
• Articles 2.1 and 4 of the Agreement on Safeguards because, inter alia , the
determinations and resulting measures were not based on proper determinations of"like or directly competitive products" or of the domestic producers of products like
or directly competitive with the imported products.
• Article 2.1 and 4 of the Agreement on Safeguards because, inter alia , the
determinations were deficient in terms of the requirements that imports be "in such
increased quantities, absolutes or relative to domestic production, and under such
conditions as to cause or threaten to cause serious injury to the domestic industry that
produces like or directly competitive products."
• Article 4.2(b) of the Agreement on Safeguards because, inter alia , the determination
failed to ensure that injury from other factors was not attributed to imports.
• Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994 and Article 3:1 of the Agreement on Safeguards
because, inter alia , of failure to establish that the increased imports and the conditions
of their importation were the result of "unforeseen developments" and the effects ofobligations assumed under the GATT 1994.
• Article I:1 of the GATT 1994 and Article 2.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards
because, inter alia , the measures discriminate based on source.
• Article 2.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, read in conjunction with Article 2.2,
because, inter alia , the determination failed to respect the requirement of parallelism
between the scope of the investigation of injury and the scope of the safeguardsmeasures.
• Article 3 of the Agreement on Safeguards because, inter alia , of the failure to afford
an opportunity for sufficient participation by interested parties and to conduct anadequate investigation, including undue reliance on confidentiality restriction to bar
disclosure of information and the failure to set forth in the published report the
findings and reasoned conclusions on all pertinent issues of fact and law, including
the justification for the exclusion of Canada and Mexico and for the actual measuresimposed by the President.
• Article 5 of the Agreement on Safeguards because, inter alia , the relief exceeded that
necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury and to facilitate adjustment.
• Article XVI of the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the WTO because, inter alia ,
the United States has failed to ensure conformity of its laws, regulations and
administrative procedures with the obligations under the Agreement on Safeguardsand the GATT 1994.
On 24 May 2002, the European Communities requested to join the consultations.  On 27 May
2002, Japan requested to join the consultations.  On 30 May 2002, Korea requested to join theWT/DS/OV/7
Page 3
consultations.  On 31 May 2002, Norway, China and Mexico requested to join the
consultations.  The US informed the DSB that it had accepted the requests of China, the EC,
Japan, Korea, Mexico and Norway to join consultations.
3. WT/DS258 –United States – Definitive Safe guard Measures on Imports of Certain Steel
Products
Complaint by New Zealand.  On 14 May 2002, New Zealand requested consultations with the
United States with regard to safeguard measures on steel imposed by the United States on
imports of certain steel products.  Pursuant to "Proclamation 7529 of March 5, 2002 - To
Facilitate Positive Adjustment to Competition from Imports of Certain Steel Products " and
the "Memorandum of March 5, 2002 - Action Under Section 203 of the Trade Act of 1974
Concerning Certain Steel Products by the President of United States",  published in the
Federal Register Vol.67 No 45 of 7 March 2002, the United States has imposed safeguard
measures, with effect from 20 March 2002, in the form of an increase in duties on imports of
certain steel products and in the form of a tariff rate quota on imports of steel slabs.
New Zealand considered that the United States measures are in breach of the obligations of
the United States under the provisions of the GATT 1994 and the WTO Agreement on
Safeguards, in particular but not necessarily exclusively, of:
• Article 2.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, because, inter alia , they are based on
deficient determinations on the like or directly competitive products, absence of
"imports in such increased quantities" and/or "under such conditions",  lack of seriousinjury or threat thereof, lack of causality, and non-respect of the requirement of
parallelism between the scope of the impor ted products subject to the investigation
and the scope of the imported products subject to the application of measures;
• Article 2.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, because, inter alia , the United States
failed to apply the measure to all imports irrespective of their source;
• Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, because, inter alia , the United
States did not provide appropriate means through which the interested parties could
present their evidence and views; and the report published by the competentauthorities did not set forth adequately the findings and reasoned conclusions on all
pertinent issues of fact and law, including the justification for the actual measure
imposed;
• Articles 4.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, because , inter alia , the United
States measures are not justified by "imports in such increased quantities and/ or
"under such conditions", lack of serious injury or threat thereof, lack of causality, and
non-respect of the requirement of parallelism between the scope of the imported
products subject to the investigation and the scope of the imported products subject tothe application of the measures;
• Article 5.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, since, inter alia , the United States
measures grant relief beyond "the extent necessary to prevent or remedy serious
injury and to facilitate adjustment";
• Article 7 of the Agreement on Safeguards, since, inter alia , they grant relief beyond
"the period of time necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury and to facilitate
adjustment";
• Article 8.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards since the United States did not seek to
maintain a substantially equivalent level of concessions or other obligations;WT/DS/OV/7
Page 4
• Article 12 of the Agreement on Safeguards, regarding, inter alia , the obligation to
provide pertinent information and adequate opportunity for prior consultations
regarding the application of a safeguard measure;
• Article 1.1 of the GATT 1994, since, inter alia , the safeguard measure discriminates
between products originating in New Zealand and products originating in other WTO
countries;
• Article X of GATT 1994 since, inter alia , they are not based on uniform, impartial
and reasonable administration of the relevant United States laws and regulations;
• Article XIX.1 of the GATT 1994, because, inter alia , they failed to show, prior to the
application of the measures, that the increases in imports and the conditions ofimportation of the products covered by the above-mentioned measures were the result
of "unforeseen developments" and of the effect of the United States obligations underthe GATT 1994.
On 24 May 2002, the European Communities requested to join the consultations.  On 27 May
2002, Japan requested to join the consultations.  On 30 May 2002, Korea requested to join the
consultations.  On 31 May 200, Norway, China and Mexico requested to join the
consultations.  The US informed the DSB that it had accepted the requests of China, the EC,Japan, Korea, Mexico and Norway to join consultations.
2. WT/DS257 – United States – Final Countervailing Duty Determination with respect to
Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada
Complaint by Canada.  On 3 May 2002, Canada requested consultations with the United
States.  The request concerned the final affirmative countervailing duty determination by the
US Department of Commerce (File No. C-122839) issued on 25 March 2002, with respect to
certain softwood lumber from Canada.  The measures at issue include the initiation and
conduct of the investigation, the final determination, provision of expedited reviews, and
other matters related to these measures.  Canada contended that these measures were
inconsistent with, and violate US' obligations under Articles 1, 2, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 19, 22
and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement and Articles VI:3 and X:3 of GATT 1994 by:
• initiating the investigation, without sufficient evidence of a subsidy, injury, or a
causal link between the subsidized imports and the alleged injury, and on the basis of
an application that failed to identify an appropriate applicant or its volume and value
of production of the domestic like product;
• failing to make an objective assessment of the degree of support for the application
by the domestic industry;
• imposing countervailing duties against programmes and policies that are not subsidies
within the meaning of Article 1.1 of the SCM Agreement and more specifically, by
treating stumpage as a "financial contribution", determining and measuring benefit
through impermissible cross-border comparisons, failing in its analysis of an alleged
benefit to objectively assess the facts on the record of the investigation, and
presuming that an alleged benefit from stumpage passes through arm’s-length
transactions to downstream recipients;
• countervailing programmes and policies that are not "specific" within the meaning of
Article 2 of the SCM Agreement;
• imposing countervailing duties at a higher rate than the alleged subsidy by inflating
the subsidy rate by a number of impermissible means (including by attributing the
entirety of the alleged stumpage benefit to only a portion of the products producedWT/DS/OV/7
Page 5
from logs, using demonstrably inaccurate data, and excluding certain shipments from
its calculations);
• failing to grant or provide for expedited reviews; and
• failing to conduct its investigation in accordance with fundamental substantive and
procedural requirements, including by failing to address significant evidence and
arguments in its determination, by gathering and relying upon information not made
available to the parties, by failing to issue timely decisions and provide reasonable
schedules for questionnaire responses, briefing, and hearings, and by, in effect,improperly applying adverse facts available to cooperative parties.
3. WT/DS256 – Turkey – Import Ban on Pet Food from Hungary
Complaint by Hungary.  On 3 May 2002, Hungary requested consultations with Turkey.  This
request was in respect of Turkey's import ban on pet food from Hungary.  Hungary claimed
that this import ban, which applies to any European country from the beginning of 2001, isimposed with the declared intention to be protected against the spread of BSE (Bovine
Spongiform Encephalopety).  Hungary submitted  that, since Hungary is a BSE-free country,
the danger of alleged cross-infection does not seem to have any scientific basis.  Hungary also
noted that its pet food is used exclusively for the feeding of cats and dogs.  In addition,
Hungary submitted that there was neither official publication of the Turkish regulationimposing the ban, nor notification of it to the relevant WTO Committee.
Hungary considered that the import ban appears to be inconsistent with Turkey's obligations
under:
• Article XI of the GATT 1994,
• Articles 2.2, 2.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.6, 6.1, 6.2 and 7 and Annex B of the SPS Agreement, and
• Article 14 of the Agreement on Agriculture.
Hungary also claimed that Turkey's measure appears to nullify and impair the benefits
accruing to Hungary directly or indirectly under the said agreements.
4. WT/DS255 - Peru– Tax Treatment on Certain Imported Products
Complaint by Chile.  On 22 April 2002, Chile requested consultations with Peru.  This
request was in respect of Peru's tax treatment on imports of fresh fruits, vegetables, fish, milk,
tea and other natural products.  In particular, Chile explained that before the adoption of Law
27.614, published on 29 December 2001, both the sale in the Peruvian market and the
importation into Peru of the products at issue had been exempt from sales tax.  Further to theadoption of Law 27.614, the importation into Peru of the products at issue was no longer
exempt from sales tax (18 per cent) while the sale of those products in the Peruvian market
was still exempt from sales tax.
Chile considered that the different tax treatment between domestic and imported products
constituted a violation by Peru of its national treatment commitments both:
• at bilateral level: Article 19 of the Economic Complementarity Agreement (ECA 38) and,
• at multilateral level (WTO): Article III of GATT 1994.  In this regard, Chile claimed that
Law 27.614 by providing that the exemption from sales tax only applied to the sale inPeru and not to the importation, was inconsistent with Article III of the GATT 1994.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 6
Chile contended that the above measure prejudiced the competitiveness of Chile's exports to
Peru of the said products, in particular although not limited to, apples, table grapes and
peaches.
On the grounds that the products affected by the measure at issue were natural goods and thus
perishable, Chile was invoking the urgency consultation procedure under Article 4.8 of the
DSU and already announced that it would make use of the expeditious Panel and Appellate
Body procedures referred to in Article 4.9 of the DSU.
On 8 May 2002, the United States requested to join the consultations.
5. WT/DS254 – United States – Definitive Safe guard Measures on Imports of Certain Steel
Products
Complaint by Norway.  On 4 April 2002, Norway requested consultations with the US with
regard to safeguard measures imposed by the US on imports of certain steel products.
Norway considered that these US safeguard measures were in breach of the US obligations
under the provisions of the GATT 1994 and of the Agreement on Safeguards, in particular,
but not necessarily exclusively, of Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards,
because, inter alia , they had been based on the deficient determinations on the like or directly
competitive products, absence of "imports in such increased quantities" and "under such
conditions," lack of serious injury or threat thereof, lack of causality, non-respect  of the
requirement of parallelism between the scope of the imported products subject to theinvestigation and the scope of the imported products subject to the application of the
measures and discriminations based on the source of the products.
• Article 3 of the Agreement on Safeguards, because, inter alia , the US had not allowed
appropriate means in which the interested parties could present evidence and their views,the report published by the competent authorities had not set forth adequately the finding
and reasoned conclusions on all pertinent issues of facts and law, including thejustification for the actual measures imposed.
• Articles 4.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, because, inter alia , they were, not
justified by "imports in such increased quantities" and/or "under such conditions", lack of
serious injury or threat thereof, lack of causality, and non-respect of the requirement of
parallelism between the scope of the imported products subject to the investigation and
the scope of the imported products subject to the application of the measures.
• Articles 5.1 and 7 of the Agreement on Safeguards, since, inter alia , they granted relief
beyond "the extent necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury and to facilitateadjustment".
• Article 8.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, inter alia , because of failure to maintain a
substantially equivalent level of concessions and other obligations between Members.
• Article 9.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, inter alia , because of failure to correctly
apply the criteria for non-application.
• Article 12 of the Agreement on Safeguards, regarding, inter alia , the obligation to provide
pertinent information and "adequate opportun ity" for prior consultations regarding the
application of a safeguard measure.
• Article I:1 of the GATT 1994, since, inter alia , they discriminated between products
originating in Norway and products originating in other WTO Members.
• Article II of the GATT 1994, since, inter alia , they consisted of withdrawal or
modification of US concessions without justification under Article XIX of the GATT1994 nor the Agreement on Safeguards nor any other provisions of the WTO Agreement.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 7
• Article X:3 of the GATT 1994, since they we re not based on uniform, impartial and
reasonable administration of the relevant US laws and regulations.
• Articles XIX of the GATT 1994, because, inter alia , the US had failed to show, prior to
the application of the measures, that the increases in imports and the conditions of
importation of the products covered by the above-mentioned measures had been the result
of "unforeseen development" and of the effect of the US obligations under the GATT
1994.
Norway reserved its right to raise further factual claims and legal issues during the course of
consultations and in any future request for pane l proceedings.  Norway also reserved all its
rights regarding the pursuit of the rights and remedies provided for under the Agreement on
Safeguards, the GATT 1994 and the Dispute Settlement Understanding.  On 11 April 2002,
New Zealand requested to join the consultations.  On 15 April 2002, Japan requested to join
the consultations.  The US informed the DSB that it had accepted the requests of Japan andNew Zealand to join consultations.
On 3 June 2002, Norway requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 14 June
2002, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.
6. WT/DS253 – United States – Definitive Safe guard Measures on Imports of Certain Steel
Products
Complaint by Switzerland.  On 3 April 2002, Switzerland requested consultations with the US
with regard to the definitive safeguard measures imposed by the US on imports of certain
steel products.  Switzerland considered that the US measures are in violation of the USobligations under provisions of GATT 1994 and of the Agreement on Safeguards, in
particular, but not necessarily exclusively, of:
• Article 2.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards because,  inter alia , they were based on
deficient determination on the like or directly competitive products, absence of increased
imports and the requisite conditions, lack of serious injury or threat thereof, or causation.
• Article 2.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards and Article I of GATT 1994 because,  inter
alia, they had failed to apply the measure to all imports irrespective of their source.
• Article 2.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards in conjunction with Article 2.2 because,
inter alia , they had not respected the requirement of parallelism between the scope of the
investigation of the injury arising from imported products and the scope of the safeguard
measures.
• Article 3 of the Agreement on Safeguards because, inter alia , they had failed to set forth
in the published report the findings and reasoned conclusions on all pertinent issues of
fact and law, including the justification for the actual measure imposed and the
justification for the exclusion of Canada and Mexico.
• Articles 4(1) and 4(2) of the Agreement on Safeguards, because, inter alia , they were not
justified by "imports in such increased quantities" and/or "under such conditions", lack ofserious injury or threat thereof, lack of causality, and non-respect of the requirement of
parallelism between the scope of the imported products subject to the investigation andthe scope of the imported products subject to the application of the measures.
• Article 5(1) of the Agreement on Safeguards, since, inter alia , they granted relief beyond
"the extent necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury and to facilitate adjustment".
• Article 7(1) of the Agreement on Safeguards, since, inter alia , they granted relief beyond
"the period of time necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury and to facilitateadjustment".
• Article 8.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards because, inter alia , they had failed to
maintain a substantially equivalent level of concessions and other obligations.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 8
• Articles 12 of the Agreement on Safeguards because,  inter alia , they had not provided
pertinent information and "adequate opportunity" for consultations regarding theapplication of a safeguard measure.
• Article I:1 of the GATT 1994, since, inter alia , the safeguard measure discriminated
between products originating in Switzerland and products originating in other WTOcountries.
• Article XIX:1 of the GATT 1994 because, inter alia , they had failed to show prior to the
application of the measures, that the increases in imports and the conditions of
importation of the products covered by the above-mentioned measures had been the result
of "unforeseen developments" and of the effect of the US obligations under the GATT
1994.
Switzerland reserved all its rights regarding the pursuit of the rights and remedies provided
for under the Agreement on Safeguards and the Dispute Settlement Understanding.  On 11
April 2002, New Zealand requested to be joined in the consultations.  On 15 April 2002,
Japan requested to be joined in the consultations. The US informed the DSB that it had
accepted the requests of Japan and New Zealand to join consultations.
On 3 June 2002, Switzerland requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on
14 June 2002, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.
7. WT/DS252 – United States – Definitive Safe guard Measures on Imports of Certain Steel
Products
Complaint by China.  On 26 March 2002, China requested consultations with the US with
regard to the definitive safeguard measures imposed by the US on imports of certain steelproducts.  Specifically, China sought consultations on the imposition by the US of definitive
safeguard measures in the form of an increase in duties on imports of certain flat steel, hot-
rolled bar, cold-finished bar, rebar, certain welded tubular products, carbon and alloy fittings,
stainless steel bar, stainless steel rod, tin mill products and stainless steel wire and in the form
of a tariff rate quota on imports of slabs effective as of 20 March 2002.
China considered that these US measures were in breach of the US obligations under the
provisions of the GATT 1994 and of the Agreement on Safeguards, in particular, but not
necessarily exclusively, of:
• Article 9(1) of the Safeguards Agreement, since, inter alia, imports of steel products from
China, as a developing country, accounting for less than 3 percent of the total imports,should be excluded from the application of the safeguard measures.
• Article 2(1) and 2(2) of the Safeguards Agreement, since, inter alia, they were based on
deficient determinations on the like or directly competitive products, absence of "importsin such increased quantities" and/or "under such conditions", lack of serious injury or
threat thereof, lack of causality, non-respect of the requirement of parallelism between thescope of the imported products subject to the investigation and the scope of the imported
products subject to the application of the measures and discriminations based on the
source of the products.
• Article 3(1) and 3(2) of the Safeguards Agreement, since, inter alia, the U.S. had not
allowed appropriate means in which the interested parties could have presented evidence
and their views, the report published by the competent authorities had not set forth
adequately the findings and reasoned conclusions on all pertinent issues of fact and law,
including the justification for the actual measure imposed, as well as abusive recourse toconfidentiality in relation to disclosure of information.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 9
• Articles 4(1) and 4(2) of the Safeguards Agreement, since, inter alia, they had failed to
meet the requirements of "imports in such increased quantities" and/or "under suchconditions", lack of serious injury or threat thereof, lack of causality, and non-respect of
the requirement of parallelism.
• Article 5(1) of the Safeguards Agreement, since, inter alia, they had granted relief beyond
"the extend necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury and to facilitate adjustment".
• Article 5(2) of the Safeguards Agreement and Article XIII of the GATT 1994, inter alia,
as regards the allocation of the tariff rate quota on imports of slabs.
• Article 7(1) of the Safeguards Agreement, since, inter alia, they granted relief beyond "the
period of time necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury and to facilitate adjustment."
• Article 8(1) of the Safeguards Agreement, since, inter alia, the U.S. had failed to
endeavour, in accordance with the provisions of Article 12.3, to maintain a substantially
equivalent level of concessions and obligations between it and the affected Members.
• Article 12 of the Safeguards Agreement, since, inter alia, the U.S. had failed to provide
immediate notification with all pertinent information and deprived adequate opportunity
for prior consultations with those Members having a substantial interest as exporters ofthe product concerned. And moreover, the U.S. had held the consultation with China in
Washington on 22 March 2002 after the safeguard measures took effect.
• Article I:1 of the GATT 1994, since, inter alia, they discriminated between products
originating in China and products originating in other WTO Members.
• Article II of the GATT 1994, since inter alia, they consisted of withdrawal or
modification of U.S. concessions without ju stification under Article XIX of the GATT
1994 nor the Safeguards Agreement nor any other provisions of the WTO Agreement.
• Article X:3 of the GATT 1994, since, inte r alia, they were not based on uniform,
impartial and reasonable administration of the relevant U.S. laws and regulations.
• Article XIX:1 of the GATT 1994, since inter alia, the U.S. had failed to demonstrate the
"unforeseen developments" had led to the increase in imports.
• Article XIX:2 of the GATT 1994, since, inter alia, US had failed to give notice in writing
to WTO Members as far in advance as might be practical and to afford WTO Members
having a substantial interest as exporters of the product concerned an opportunity toconsult with it in respect of the proposed action.
China reserved its right to raise further-factual claims and legal issues during the course of
consultations and in any future request for panel proceedings.  On 4 April 2002, Japan
requested to join the consultations.  On 5 April 2002, New Zealand also requested to join theconsultations.  The US informed the DSB that it had accepted the requests of Japan and New
Zealand to join the consultations.
On 27 May 2002, China requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 7 June
2002, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.
8. WT/DS250 – United States – Equalizing Exci se Tax Imposed by Florida on Processed
Orange and Grapefruit Products
Complaint by Brazil.  On 20 March 2002, Brazil requested consultations with the US
concerning the so-called "Equalizing Excise Tax" imposed by the State of Florida on
processed orange and grapefruit products produced from citrus fruit grown outside the United
States (Section 601.155 Florida Statutes).  Brazil indicated that since 1970, the state ofFlorida had imposed, pursuant to section 601.155 of the Florida Statutes, an "equalizing
excise tax" on processed orange and processed grapefruit products, in amounts determined by
the Florida Department of Citrus.  However, the statute by its terms - Section 601.155(5),
Florida Statutes - exempted from the tax products "produced in whole or in part from citrus
fruit grown within the United States."  In the view of Brazil the incidence of this tax onWT/DS/OV/7
Page 10
imported processed citrus products and not on domestic products on its face constituted a
violation of Articles II:1(a), III.1 and III:2 of GATT 1994.
More particularly, Brazil asserted that the contested provisions of the Florida Statutes
violated:
• Article III:2 of GATT 1994, since the tax had applied to imported processed products, but
not to fruit grown in the United States outside the State of Florida and because, insofar as
Florida-grown citrus had been taxed in the same way, "citrus fruit from Florida" and
imported "processed citrus products" were not like products.
• Article III:2 (second sentence), and by reference Article III:1, of GATT 1994 because the
tax on imported citrus products had been at a higher ad valorem  rate than that on Florida
fruit.
• Article III:4 and III:1 of GATT because the proceeds of the tax had been used exclusively
for the advertising and promotion of Florida grown citrus, and not for promotion of
imported citrus and citrus products.
Brazil contended that the impact of the Florida equalizing excise tax had been to provide
protection and support to domestic processed citrus products and to restrain the importation of
processed citrus products into Florida.  Since processed citrus products, principally in theform of frozen concentrated orange juice were  among Brazil’s most significant exports to the
United States, Brazil was of the view that the restraint on their importation by the State of
Florida constituted a nullification and impairment of benefits accruing to Brazil under GATT
1994.  Brazil reserved the right to raise additional factual or legal points related to the
aforementioned measure during the course of consultations.
9. WT/DS247 – United States – Provisional An ti-Dumping Measure on Imports of Certain
Softwood Lumber from Canada
Complaint by Canada.  On 6 March 2002, Canada requested consultations under Article 4.8
of the DSU (urgency procedure) with the United States regarding an anti-dumping measureapplied by the United States to imports of softwood lumber from Canada.
Specifically, Canada expressed concern about three aspects of the US anti-dumping measure:(i) Canada considered that the initiation of the anti-dumping investigation in respect of
imports of softwood lumber from Canada was unjustified because of a lack of
sufficient evidence regarding, inter alia , the existence of dumping.  In Canada's view,
the initiation of the investigation was, therefore, inconsistent with Articles 5.2 and 5.3
of the AD Agreement.  Canada considered that because the initiation was inconsistent
with the provisions of Article 5, the application of provisional measures was
inconsistent with Article 7.1 of the AD Agreement.
(ii) Canada considered that the United States' preliminary determination that softwood
lumber products from Canada were being sold at less than fair value disregarded
certain sales of like products in the domestic market of the exporting country, which
resulted in improper price comparisons and an inflation of weighted-average margins
of dumping.  In Canada's view, this was in consistent with Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the
AD Agreement.
(iii) Canada considered that the "zeroing" methodology applied by the United States in the
preliminary investigation resulted in an inflation of weighted-average margins ofWT/DS/OV/7
Page 11
dumping.  In Canada's view, this was inconsistent with Article 2.4.2 of the AD
Agreement.
The United States, although accepting the request for consultations, however did not accept
that this was a case of urgency for the purpose of Article 4.8 of the DSU.
10. WT/DS246 – European Communities – Conditions for the Granting of Tariff
Preferences to Developing Countries
Complaint by India.  On 5 March 2002, India requested consultations with the European
Communities concerning the conditions under which the EC accords tariff preferences to
developing countries under its current scheme of generalized tariff preferences ("GSP
scheme").
India presented this request pursuant to Article 4 of the DSU, Article XXIII:1 of the GATT
1994 and paragraph 4(b) of the Decisi on of 28 November 1979 of the GATT
CONTRACTING PARTIES on Differential and More  Favourable Treatment, Reciprocity and
Fuller Participation of Developing Countries ("Enabling Clause").
India identified two sets of conditions:
 (i) tariff preferences accorded under a special tariff arrangement for combating drug
production and trafficking are available only to specified countries selected by the EC;
 (ii) tariff preferences accorded under special incentive arrangements for the protection of
labour rights and the environment are accorded only to countries that meet labour and
environmental policy standards determined by the EC.
India considered that the tariff preferences accorded by the EC under these special
arrangements create undue difficulties for India's exports to the EC, including for those under
the general arrangements of the EC's GSP scheme, and nullify or impair the benefits accruing
to India under the most favoured nation provisions of Article I:1 of the GATT 1994 and
paragraphs 2(a), 3(a) and 3(c) of the Enabling Clause.
In the view of India, the conditions under whic h the EC accorded tariff preferences under the
special arrangements could not be reconciled with two requirements under WTO law:
 (i) the requirement under paragraph 2(a) of the Enabling Clause that preferences be granted
in accordance with the GSP described in the waiver adopted by the CONTRACTING
PARTIES on 25 June 1971, which refers to the UNCTAD agreement on theestablishment of a system providing for "generalized, non-reciprocal and non-
discriminatory preferences beneficial to the developing countries in order to increase the
export earnings, to promote the industrialization and to accelerate the rates of economic
growth of these countries";
 (ii) paragraphs 3(a) and 3(c) of the Enabling Clause according to which the preferences
"shall be designed to facilitate and promote the trade of developing countries" and
"respond positively to the development, financial and trade needs of developing
countries".
On 20 March 2002, Venezuela requested to be joined in the consultations.  On 21 March
2002, Colombia requested to be joined in the consultations.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 12
11. WT/DS243 – United States – Rules of Or igin for Textiles and Apparel Products
Complaint by India.  On 11 January 2002, Thailand requested consultations with the United
States in respect of the its rules of origin applicable to imports of textiles and apparel products
as set out in Section 334 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, Section 405 of the Trade
and Development Act of 2000 and the customs regulations implementing these provisions.
India argued that, prior to the abovementioned Section 334, the rule of origin applicable to
textiles and apparel products was the "substantial transformation" rule.  India considered that
Section 334 changed the system by identifying specific processing operations which would
confer origin to the various types of textiles and apparel products.  In India's view, these
changes appear to have been made to protect the United States textiles and clothing industry
from import competition.  India indicated that the changes introduced by Section 334 hadalready been challenged by the European Communities on the grounds that they were
incompatible with the United States' obligations under the Agreement on Rules of Origin and
other WTO Agreements (WT/DS151).  India explai ned that that dispute was settled through a
procès-verbal  whereby the United States agreed to introduce legislation amending
Section 334.  According to India, the changes introduced by the amending legislation, i.e.
Section 405, were aimed at taking account of the particular export interests of the European
Communities.
India is of the view that the changes introduced by Sections 334 and 405 have resulted in
extraordinary complex rules under which the criter ia that confer origin vary between similar
products and processing operations.  India argued that the structure of the changes, the
circumstances under which they were adopted and their effect on the conditions of
competition for textiles and apparel products suggest that they serve trade policy purposes.
On those grounds, India questioned the compatibility of those changes with paragraphs (b),
(c), (d) and (e) of Article 2 of the Agreement on Rules of Origin.
On 7 May 2002, India requested the establishment of a Panel.  At its meeting on 22 May
2002, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel .
12. WT/DS242 – European Communities – Generalized System of Preferences
Complaint by Thailand.  On 7 December 2001, Thailand requested consultations with the
European Communities under Article XXIII of GATT 1994 in respect of measures under theEuropean Communities' Generalized System of Preferences ("GSP") scheme.  The GSP
scheme was at the time implemented through Council Regulation (EC) no. 2820/98 of 21
December 1998 applying a multiannual scheme of generalized tariff preferences for the
period of 1 July 1999 to 31 December 2001, and was expected to continue to be implemented
through the Amended Proposal for a Council Regulation applying a scheme of generalizedtariff preferences for the period 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2004 dated 14 November
2001.
Thailand considered that certain measures under the European Communities' GSP adversely
affect imports into the European Communities of goods originating in Thailand.  In particular,Thailand claimed that, through its GSP scheme as implemented, the EC fails to carry out its
obligations under:
• Article I of GATT 1994; and
• The Enabling Clause, as incorporated into GATT 1994.
According to Thailand, the benefits accruing to  it directly or indirectly under the WTO
Agreement are being nullified or impaired as a result of this alleged failure by the EC to carryWT/DS/OV/7
Page 13
out its obligations under the WTO Agreement.  Thailand also made a non-violation claim to
the effect that the application by the EC of the above-mentioned measures nullifies or impairs
the benefits accruing to Thailand directly or indirectly under the WTO Agreement pursuant to
Article XXIII:1(b) of GATT 1994.
Costa Rica (on 17 December 2001), Guatem ala (on 19 December 2001), Honduras and
Nicaragua (on 20 December 2001), and Colombia (on 24 December 2001) requested to be
joined in the consultations as third parties  but not admitted because these are consultations
under Article XXIII.  Colombia raised the matter under "other business" in the DSB of
18 January 2002.  It admitted that it was not de jure  entitled to be joined in consultations
under Article XXIII, but stated that this raised the issue of "co-defendants" under the DSU
again.
13. WT/DS239 - United States – Anti-dumping  Duties on Silicon Metal from Brazil
Complaint by Brazil.  On 17 September 2001, Brazil requested consultations with the US.  On
1 November 2001, Brazil requested that their original request for consultations be cancelled
and replaced with a new request.  In this new request, Brazil requested consultations with theUS in respect of the following:
• Antidumping duties imposed by the US on imports of silicon metal from Brazil:
Antidumping Duty Order:  Silicon Metal From Brazil, 56 Fed. Reg. 36135 (July 31,
1991) (US case number A-351-806).
• Section 351.106(c) of the US Depart ment of Commerce’s ("Department")
regulations
1, which establishes that a de minimis margin of 0.5 percent applies for
administrative reviews.
• US "zeroing" methodology when establishing margins of dumping, as reflected in
Chapter 6 of the Antidumping Manual of the Department2 and in Section 771(35) of
the Tariff Act of 1930.
On 28 September 2001, Thailand requested to join the consultations on the grounds that it had
a substantial trade interest in the matter.  On 19 November 2001, the EC requested to be
joined in the consultations as third party.
14. WT/DS237 – Turkey – Certain Import Procedures for Fresh Fruits
Complaint by Ecuador. On 31 August 2001, Ecuador requested consultations with Turkey
concerning certain import procedures for fresh fruits and, in particular, bananas.  The
procedure requires, according to Ecuador, the issuance by the Turkish Ministry of Agriculture
of a document, known as "Kontrol Belgesi".  Ecuador explained that this procedure is
established under the "Communiqué for Standardization in Foreign Trade" published by the
Under-Secretariat of Foreign Trade in the Official Journal 24271 of 25 December 2000
(Annex 1 thereof).  Ecuador alleged that this procedure, as applied by the Turkish authorities,
is a barrier to trade which is inconsistent with the obligations of Turkey under GATT 1994,the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, the Agreement on
Import Licensing Procedures, the Agreement on Agriculture and the GATS.  In particular,
Ecuador considered that the provisions of the WTO agreements with which Turkey’s
"Kontrol Belgesi" procedure appears to be  inconsistent include the following:
• Articles II, III, VIII, X and XI of the GATT 1994;
                                                     
1 19 C.F.R. § 351.106(c).
2 Available at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/admanual/.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 14
• Articles 2.3 and 8 and Annexes B and C of th e Agreement on the Application of Sanitary
and Phytosanitary Measures
• Paragraphs 2, 3, 5 and 6 of Article 1 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures;
• Article 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture; and
• Articles VI and XVII of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS).
On 20 September 2001, the EC requested to be joined in the consultations.
15. WT/DS233 – Argentina – Measures Affectin g the Import of Pharmaceutical Products
Complaint by India.  On 25 May 2001, India requested consultations with Argentina
concerning Argentina's Law No. 24.766 and Decr ee No. 150/92. According to India, these
measures constitute unnecessary obstacles to international trade and prevent Indian
medicines, drugs and other pharmaceuticals from entering into the Argentinean market, thus
discriminating against Indian drugs vis-à-vis  like products of other countries and of
Argentina.
According to India, the above measures require that before entering the Argentinean market,
all drugs and other pharmaceuticals must be registered with the National Administration of
Drugs, Foodstuffs and Medical Technology, Ministry of Health of Argentina. The above
Decree contains two annexes listing countries.
• In respect of Annex I countries, pharmaceutical products are required to be manufactured
in facilities approved by the relevant governmental bodies of these countries or by theArgentinean Ministry of Health and meet the National Health Authority's manufacturing
and quality control requirements.
• In respect of Annex II countries, manufacturing facilities are required to be inspected and
approved by the Ministry of Health of Argentina before export of these pharmaceutical
products into Argentina.
According to India, it does not figure in either of those two annexes. This alleged
discrimination would have led to total lack of market access for Indian drugs and
pharmaceutical products in Argentina.  India considered that infringement of the following
provisions have taken place:
• Articles 2 (especially 2.2), 5 (especially 5.1 and 5.2) and 12 of the TBT Agreement
• Articles I and III of the GATT 1994; and
• Article XVI:4 of the Agreement establishing the WTO.
16. WT/DS232 – Mexico – Measures Affe cting the Import of Matches
Complaint by Chile.  On 17 May 2001, Chile requested consultations with Mexico in respect
of a series of Mexican laws and regulations which are alleged to constitute unnecessarybarriers to the import of Chilean matches. Ac cording to Chile, pursuant to these laws and
regulations, matches have been classified in Mexico as an explosive and hazardous product,
due to a confusion between the chemical element " fósforo " (phosphor) and " fosfóros
(o cerillos) de seguridad " (matches). As a result, Chilean matches have been subject to
control by the National Defense Ministry and, consequently, to a series of requirementsregarding packaging, entry, liquidation, transportation and storage applicable to explosives
and other hazardous substances, with the aim of providing protection to the Mexican industry.
According to Chile, these measures are inconsistent with, inter alia , the following provisions:
• Articles 1, 2 and 5 of the TBT Agreement;WT/DS/OV/7
Page 15
• Articles 1, 3 and 5 of the Agreemen t on Import Licensing Procedures; and,
• Article III:4 of the GATT 1994.
17. WT/DS230 – Chile – Safeguard Measures and Modification of Schedules regarding
Sugar
Complaint by Colombia. On 17 April 2001, Colombia requested consultations with Chile
concerning:
(1) definitive safeguard measures imposed by Chile on 20 January 2000 in respect of a
number of agricultural products, including sugar, and extended in November 2000 for
the duration of one year; and
(2) Chile's decision of 14 March 2001 not to recognize Colombia's substantial interest to
be consulted with respect to the modification of concessions regarding, inter alia ,
refined sugar (HS sub-heading 17.01.99.00).
In November of 2000, Chile had notified its intention to modify these concessions pursuant to
Article XXVIII of GATT 1994. According to Colombia, the above measures are inconsistent
with Chile's obligations under the following provisions:
• Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 and 12 of the Safeguards Agreement;
• Articles II, XIX and XXVIII of GATT 1994; and
• the Understanding on the Interpretation of Article XXVIII of the GATT 1994 and the
Guidelines of 10 November 1980 regarding Procedures for Negotiations underArticle XXVIII.
According to Colombia, the Chilean measures, taken together or individually, appear to
nullify and impair benefits accruing to Colombia under the cited agreements.  As indicated byColombia in its request, this new request repla ces in its totality the request for consultations
by Colombia circulated as WT/DS228/1.
18. WT/DS229 – Brazil – Anti-Dumping Du ties on Jute Bags from India
Complaint by India.  On 9 April 2001, India requested consultations with Brazil concerning:
• the determination by the Brazilian government to continue to impose anti-dumping duties
on jute bags and bags made of jute yarn from India, based on an allegedly forged
document regarding dumping margin attributed to a non-existing Indian company;
• its refusal to reconsider the decision to continue anti-dumping duties on Indian jute
products despite the fact that the non-existence of that company was brought to the notice
of the authorities;
• non-consideration of the fresh evidence regarding cost of production, domestic sales
prices, export prices, etc., of Indian jute manufacturers, and refusal to initiate review ofthe decision to impose anti-dumping duties;
• the general practice of Brazil regarding review and imposition of anti-dumping duties;
and
• Brazilian anti-dumping laws and regulations, including, but not limited to, Article 58 of
Decree No. 1.602 of 1995.
According to India, the provisions with wh ich these determinations and legal provisions
appear to be inconsistent include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Articles VI and X of GATT 1994;WT/DS/OV/7
Page 16
• Articles 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 (especially 6.6, 6.7, 6.8 and Annex II, 6.9, 6.10), 11, 12, 17.6(i), 18.3,
18.4; and
• Article XVI of the WTO Agreement.
In addition, the determination to continue the anti-dumping duties allegedly nullifies and
impairs benefits accruing to India under, or ot herwise impedes the attainment of objectives of,
the cited agreements.
19. WT/DS226 – Chile – Provisional Safeguard Measure on Mixtures of Edible Oils
Complaint by Argentina.  On 19 February 2001, Argentina requested consultations with Chile
concerning a provisional safeguard measure on imports of mixed edible oils (tariff heading
1517.9000 of the Chilean Harmonised System), adopted by the Chilean authorities on 11
January 2001, and consisting of an ad valorem  duty of 48% on imports of those products. On
10 January 2001 the notification by Chile of the initiation of the investigation was circulatedas document G/SG/N/6/CHL/5, and on 19 January 2001 the notification of the
recommendation by the Chilean investigating au thority to impose a provisional safeguard
measure was circulated as document G/SG /N/7/5/Suppl.1. According to Argentina:
• Chile did not comply with its obligation pursuant to Article 12.4 of the Safeguards
Agreement (SA) to hold consultations immediately following adoption of the measure.
• Argentina also opined that there is no clear definition of like or directly competitive
product, the affected domestic industry, or the period of investigation during which theperformance of imports was assessed.
• In addition, as regards the assessment of injury or threat of injury, in Argentina's view, it
is not clear from a preliminary analysis with respect to which industry such assessmentwas made, since it appears that the data used do sometimes not relate to the same
industry.
• Furthermore, Argentina argued that there does not seem to be clear evidence of a causal
link between increased imports and the threat of serious injury to the domestic industry.
• Argentina also considered that the investig ating authority did not take into account
"factors other than increased imports causing injury to the domestic industry at the same
time," as provided for by Article 4.2(b) SA.
• Finally, the notification does not indicate the reasons why any delay could cause
irreparable damage to the domestic industry, and, therefore, does not establish the
existence of "critical circumstances".
• Argentina believed that the said provisional safeguard measure is inconsistent with
Chile's obligations under Article XIX of GATT 1994 and the SA, including, but notlimited to, Articles 2, 4, 6 and 12.
20. WT/DS225 – United States – Anti-dumping duties on Seamless Pipe from Italy
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 5 February 2001, the EC requested
consultations with the US concerning anti-dumping duties imposed by the US on imports of
seamless line and pressure pipe ("seamless pipe") from Italy.  The request relates in particular
to the final results of a sunset review of the measure, carried out by the US Department of
Commerce (DOC) and published in the federal register on 7 November 2000.  It also covers
certain aspects of the procedures followed by the DOC for initiating sunset reviews which arecontained in Section 751 c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 and in the implementing regulations
issued by the DOC.
With regard to the final results of the sunset review, the EC considered that:WT/DS/OV/7
Page 17
• the DOC's finding that the revocation of the anti-dumping order was likely to lead to the
continuation of dumping is inconsistent with the obligations of the United States underthe Anti-Dumping Agreement and, in particular is in breach of Articles 5.8, 11.1 and 11.3
thereof.
• The EC noted that in this instance the DOC  has found in the sunset review that dumping
will continue at a rate of 1,27%, which is below the 2% de minimis  threshold for new
investigations in Article 5.8 which, in the view of the EC, applies also in sunset reviewsof anti-dumping measures.
• In addition, according to the EC, the DOC should have made a positive demonstration to
the effect that the expiry of the measures would be likely to lead to, inter alia , the
continuation or recurrence of dumping, whereas it has only found that dumping of less
than de minimis  level will continue.  This was, in the view of the EC, not sufficient to
justify the continuation of the measure.
With regard to the initiation of the sunset review, the EC considered that:
• the procedure used was inconsistent with Articles 11.1, 11.3, and 18.4 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement and with Article XVI.4 of the Agreement establishing the
WTO.
• The EC considered that by self-initiating sunset reviews without positive evidence, and
by not requiring such evidence from its domestic industry for initiation, the DOC is
unreasonably shifting the burden of proof in sunset reviews to exporters.
• In the view of the EC, by placing all respondents (domestic industry and exporters) on the
same footing in the investigation, the DOC had removed the appropriate threshold forinitiation of reviews foreseen in Article 11.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
21. WT/DS224 – United States – US Patents Code
Complaint by Brazil.  On 31 January 2001, Brazil requested consultations with the US
concerning the provisions of the United States  Patents Code (US Patents Code), in particular
those of Chapter 18 [38] – " Patent Rights in Inventions Made with Federal Assistance".
Brazil detected several discriminatory elements in the US Patents Code, including, but not
limited to, the following examples:
• the stipulation that no small business firm or non-profit organization which receives title
to any subject invention shall grant to any pe rson the exclusive right to use or sell any
subject invention in the US unless such person agrees that any products embodying the
subject invention or produced through the use of the invention will be manufactured
substantially in the US.
• Brazil also referred to a requirement that each funding agreement with a small business
firm or non-profit organization shall contain appropriate provisions to effectuate the
above-mentioned requirement; and
• the statutory restrictions limiting the right to use or sell any federally owned invention in
the US only to a licensee that agrees that any products embodying the invention or
produced through the use of the invention will be manufactured substantially in the US.
Brazil requested consultations with the US on these and other provisions of the US Patents
Code, to "understand how the US justifies the consistency of such requirements with its
obligations under the TRIPs Agreement, especially Articles 27 and 28, the TRIMs
Agreement, Article 2 in particular, and Articles III and XI of GATT 1994".WT/DS/OV/7
Page 18
22. WT/DS223 – European Communities – Tarif f-Rate Quota on Corn Gluten Feed from
the United States
Complaint by the United States.  On 25 January 2001, the US requested consultations with the
EC concerning the application by the EC of a tariff-rate quota (TRQ) on corn gluten feed
imported from the US. On 20 August 1998, the EC imposed a TRQ of 5 Euros per metric ton(MT) on the first 2,730,000 MT of corn gluten feed imported into the EC from the US. The
TRQ was made applicable beginning on the earlier of 1 June 2001 or 5 days after the date of
the DSB's adoption of a decision that the US safeguard measure on wheat gluten was
incompatible with the WTO Agreements. The EC cited Articles 8.2 and 8.3 of the Safeguards
Agreement as authority for this measure.
According to the US:
• EC representatives stated that the DSB adoption of its recommendations and rulings in
US – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Wheat Gluten from the EC  triggers the
application of the TRQ.
•  the EC provided written notification of this measure to the Committee on Safeguards and
the Council for Trade in Goods, but never placed the measure on the agenda of the
Council for Trade in Goods.
• the EC at no point consulted with the US on how measures imposed by the EC might
meet the requirement to maintain substantially equivalent levels of concessions and otherobligations to that existing under the GATT 1994.
• In the view of the US, it therefore appears that the corn gluten feed TRQ does not satisfy
the requirements of Articles 8.1, 8.2, and 8.3 of the Safeguards Agreement for a Memberto suspend concessions or other obligations.
• In the view of the US, the imposition of th e TRQ on corn gluten feed imported from the
US appears to be inconsistent with Articl es I, II and XIX of the GATT 1994, and Articles
8.1, 8.2, and 8.3 of the Safeguards Agreement.
• According to the US, the EC's measures also appear to nullify or impair the benefits
accruing to the US directly or indirectly under the cited agreements.
23. WT/DS220 – Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard Measures relating to Certain
Agricultural Products
Complaint by Guatemala.  On 5 January 2001, Guatemala requested consultations with Chile
concerning:
(1) the Chilean legislation regarding safeguards and price band systems, including Law
18.525, as subsequently amended by Law 18.591 and Law 19.546, as well asimplementing regulations and complementary and/or amending provisions;
(2) the initiation of an investigation regarding products subject to the price band system
contained in notification (G/SG/N/6/CHL/ 2), the conduct of the investigation, the
preliminary determination contained in notification (G/SG/N/7/CHL/2/Suppl.1), and
the definitive determination contained in notifications (G/SG/N/8/CHL/1),
(G/SG/N/10/CHL/1), (G/SG/ N/8/CHL/1/Suppl.1) and (G /SG/N/10/CHL/1/Suppl.1);
these notifications indicate that wheat, wheat flour, sugar and edible vegetable oils
are subject to said safeguard measures;
(3) the request for an extension of these measures contained in notifications
(G/SG/N/10/CHL/1/Suppl.2) and (G /SG/N/10/CHL/1/Suppl.2/Corr.1).
Guatemala considers that the measures referred to:WT/DS/OV/7
Page 19
• under (1) are inconsistent with, inter alia , Article II of GATT 1994 and Article 4 of the
Safeguards Agreement,
• under (2) are inconsistent with, inter alia , Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 12 of the Safeguards
Agreement, and Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994, and
• under (3) appears to be inconsistent with, inter alia , Chile's obligations under GATT 1994
and Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 12 of the Safeguards Agreement.
24. WT/DS218 – United States- Countervailing Duties on Certain Carbon Steel Products
from Brazil
Complaint by Brazil.  On 21 December 2000, Brazil requested consultations with the US
concerning an aspect of US countervailing dut y practice and the imposition of countervailing
duties on certain carbon steel products originating in Brazil. Brazil is concerned with the
practice of the United States of applying its countervailing duty laws so as to consistently findthat privatized companies benefit from pre-privatization subsidy benefits, and the
unwillingness of the United States to bring its practice into conformity with the SCM
Agreement.  In addition, Brazil is concerned with the results of a continued imposition of an
order and a final countervailing duty decision by the United States based on a finding that the
benefits from equity infusions provided to companies prior to their privatization are passed
through to the companies following a change in ownership and control.
This is, in the view of Brazil, illustrated by two measures:
(1) the decision by the United States to continue a countervailing order on certain cut-to-
length plate from Brazil, following a five-year review, based on a finding that
subsidization from pre-privatization equity infusions would continue if the order wererevoked; and
(2) the decision by the United States in its continued final countervailing duty
determination related to exports of certain hot-rolled steel from Brazil, and the legal
effects thereof.
Brazil considered that findings that three companies were benefitting from subsidies provided
prior to their privatization are in breach of Articles 1.1(b), 10, 14, 19 and 21 of the SCM
Agreement, in so far as they are based on supposed benefits from equity infusions granted to
the companies prior to their privatization. In addition, Brazil considers that the decision not to
terminate the investigation is in breach of Article 11.9 of the SCM Agreement. Brazil notesthat the Commerce Department relied on the same analysis of subsidization following a
privatization, which was found to be inconsistent with WTO obligations by the Appellate
Body in the case on United States – Imposition of Countervailing duties on Certain Hot-
Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products originating in the United Kingdom .
25. WT/DS216 – Mexico – Provisio nal Anti-Dumping Measure on Electric Transformers
Complaint by Brazil.  On 20 December 2000, Brazil requested consultations with Mexico
concerning the 17 July 2000 provisional anti-dumping measure on electronic transformers
having a power of more than 10.000 KVA, classified under tariff line 8504.23.01 of the
General Import Law, from Brazil.  Brazil considered that the above determination and the
resulting provisional measures are inconsistent with Mexico's obligations under the AD
Agreement and the GATT 1994, in particular:
• Articles 5.2, 5.3 and 5.8 of the AD Agreement (lack of sufficient evidence of dumping,
injury and causation);WT/DS/OV/7
Page 20
• Article 5.8 of the AD Agreement (failure by Mexico to terminate the investigation
"promptly" when presented with evidence that it was factually impossible to finddumping or injury during the period of investigation);
• Article 6.8 and Annex II of the AD Agreement (use by Mexico of "best information
available" in a manner inconsistent with the requirements established in those provisions);
• Article 7.1(i) of the AD Agreement (imposit ion by Mexico of provisional measures
pursuant to an investigation which was not initiated in accordance with Article 5 of the
AD Agreement);
• Article 7.1(ii) of the AD Agreement (imposition by Mexico of provisional measures
without a valid preliminary determination of: (1) dumping, as defined in Article 2 of theAD Agreement; (2) injury, as defined under Articles 3.4 and 3.7 of the AD Agreement).
26. WT/DS215 – Philippines – Anti-Dumping Me asures regarding Polypropylene Resins
from Korea
Complaint by Korea.  On 15 December 2000, Korea requested consultations with the
Philippines concerning the Preliminary and Final Determinations of the Tariff Commission of
the Philippines on Polypropylene Resins from Korea, dated 15 November 1999 and
11 September 2000 respectively.  Korea considered that errors were made by the Philippines
in those determinations which resulted in erroneous findings and defective conclusions with
regard to, among others, like product, dumping, injury, and causality, as well as the
imposition, calculation and collection of anti-dumping margins which are incompatible withthe obligations of the Philippines under the provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, in
particular, but not necessarily limited to, Articles 2, 3, 5, 6 (including Annex II), 7, 9, and 12,
and Article VI of GATT 1994.
27. WT/DS209 – European Communities – Measures Affecting Soluble Coffee
Complaint by Brazil.  On 12 October 2000, Brazil requested consultations with the EC
concerning measures applied under the EC's Generalized System of Preferences scheme
(GSP) that affect imports of soluble coffee originating in Brazil. The measures in question
include:
(1) the "graduation" mechanism, which progressively and selectively reduces or
eliminates preferences granted to specific products and/or beneficiary countries under
the GSP scheme; in the case of Brazilian soluble coffee, preferential treatment has
been progressively reduced and finally eliminated on 1 January 1999; and
(2) the "drugs regime", which confers a special preferential treatment for products
originating in the Andean and Central American Common Market countries that are
conducting a campaign to combat drugs; in the case of soluble coffee, this special
preferential treatment currently amounts to duty free access of exports originating in
those countries into the EC's market.
As Brazil currently understands, the EC legislation that establishes the special treatment for
products – among which soluble coffee – is Council Regulation (EC) No. 1256/96, dated
20 June 1996, and current Council Regulation (EC) No. 2820/98, dated 21 December 1998.
Brazil considered that the above measures, both separately and jointly, adversely affect the
importation into the EC of soluble coffee originating in Brazil. Brazil alleged that these
measures are inconsistent with the obligations of the EC under the 1979 Decision of the
GATT Contracting Parties on Differential and More Favourable Treatment, Reciprocity andFuller Participation of Developing Countries (Enabling Clause), as incorporated in GATT
1994, and under Article I of GATT 1994. Brazil considered that these measures nullify or
impair the benefits accruing to Brazil directly or indirectly under the cited provisions.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 21
28. WT/DS208 – Turkey – Anti-Dumping Duty  on Steel and Iron Pipe Fittings
Complaint by Brazil.  On 9 October 2000, Brazil requested consultations with Turkey
concerning the anti-dumping duty on steel and iron pipe fittings from Brazil, imposed by
communication No. 2000/3 (published in the Turkish official gazette on 26 April 2000).Brazil considered that Turkey failed to ensu re proper notifications in this case, that its
establishment of the facts was not proper, and that its evaluation of these facts was not
unbiased nor objective, particularly in relation to:
(1) the initiation of the investigation;
(2) the conduct of the investigation, including the evaluation, findings and determinations
of dumping and injury;
(3) the evaluation, findings and determinations of the causal link between dumping and
injury;
(4) the imposition of the anti-dumping duty.
Brazil considered that Turkey has acted inconsistently with the following provisions:
Article VI of the GATT 1994; Article 2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement (including
paragraphs 2.1, 2.2, 2.4 and 2.6); Article 3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement (including
paragraphs 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6 and 3.7) Article 5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement
(including paragraphs 5.2, 5.3, 5.5, 5.7 and 5.8); Article 6 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement
(including paragraphs 6.1, 6.2, 6.4, 6.6, 6.9 and 6.10); Article 12 of the Anti-DumpingAgreement (including paragraphs 12.1 and 12.2); Article 15 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
29. WT/DS205 – Egypt - Import Prohibitio n on Canned Tuna with Soybean Oil
Complaint by Thailand.  On 22 September 2000, Thailand requested consultations with Egypt
concerning the prohibition imposed by Egypt on importation of canned tuna with soybean oilfrom Thailand, pursuant to Letter dated 2 January 2000 of the Ministry of Economy and
Foreign Trade of Egypt and Circular Note no. 5 of the Year 2000 issued on 13 January 2000
by the Customs Authority of Egypt. Thailand considered that, through the above-mentioned
measures, the Arab Republic of Egypt failed to carry out its obligations under the following
provisions of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization:
Articles I, XI, and XIII of the GATT, and Arti cles 2, 3 and 5, and Annex B, paragraph 2 and
paragraph 5, of the SPS Agreement.
30.  WT/DS203 – Mexico – Measures Affecting Trade in Live Swine
Complaint by the United States. On 10 July 2000, the US requested consultations with
Mexico in respect of Mexico's 20 October 1999 definitive anti-dumping measure on live
swine for slaughter (merchandise classified under tariff classification 0103.92.99 of theGeneral Import Law) exported from the United States, independently from the country or
origin, and actions by Mexico in the conduct of the anti-dumping investigation resulting in
that measure.  The US considered that:
(i) Mexico made a determination of threat of material injury in contravention of
Articles 3 and 12 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, by failing to:
• evaluate all relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of
the industry;
• perform an objective examination of the consequent impact of imports found to
be dumped on domestic producers of the like product;
• determine that there was a clearly foreseen and imminent change in
circumstances that would create a situat ion in which dumping of imports of liveWT/DS/OV/7
Page 22
swine of a weight more than or equal to 50 kilograms and less than 110 kilograms
would cause injury; and
• determine that material injury would occur unless protective action were taken.
(ii) The US further considered that Mexico failed to comply with the requirements of
Article 6 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, by failing to:
• provide respondent US exporters with timely opportunities to see and prepare
presentations on the basis of all information used by the investigating authoritythat is relevant to the anti-dumping investigation; and
• inform respondent US exporters, before the final determination was made, of the
essential facts under consideration which form the basis of Mexico's decision toapply definitive measures.
(iii) In addition, the US request concerned three sets of measures affecting trade in live
swine (merchandise classified under tariff classification 0103 of the General Import
Law) exported from the United States.  The US considered that those three sets of
Mexican measures are restricting or prohibiting the entry of US live swine:
• according to the US, Mexico has prohibited the importation of certain swine if
they exceed 110 kilograms in weight.
• notwithstanding the alleged ban on importation, Mexico allegedly maintains
sanitary restrictions, including inspection and quarantine measures, on the
importation of swine weighing 110 kilograms or more, which are applied toneither smaller imported swine nor domestic Mexican swine.  The US considered
such application of more restrictive sanitary measures against larger imported
swine to constitute arbitrary and unjustified discrimination and that these
measures are maintained without sufficient scientific evidence and are not based
on a risk assessment.
The US understood that Mexico might have adopted technical regulations, not constituting
sanitary measures, that are applicable to imported swine but not to domestic swine.
In the view of the US the aforementioned three measures are inconsistent with Mexico's
obligations under:
(i)  Articles 2.2, 2.3, 3, 5.1, 5.6, 7 and 8 of the SPS Agreement;
(ii) Article 4.2 of the Agriculture Agreement;
(iii) Articles 2 and 5 of the TBT Agreement; and(iv) Articles III:4 and XI:1 of the GATT 1994.
31. WT/DS201 – Nicaragua – Measures Affecting Imports from Honduras and
Colombia (II)
Complaint by Honduras. On 26 June 2000, Honduras requested consultations with Nicaragua
in respect of Law 325 of 1999 whereby a tax is established on goods and services coming
from or originating in Honduras and Colombia  as well as implementing Decree 129-99 and
Ministerial Order 041-99.  Honduras considered that Law 325 of 1999 and implementing
Decree 129-99 are incompatible with Nicaragua's obligations under the GATT 1994, and in
particular Articles I and II thereof, and that the aforementioned measures as well as
Ministerial Order 041-99 are incompatible with Nicaragua's obligations under Articles II and
XVI of the GATS.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 23
32. WT/DS200 – United States – Section 306 of the Trade Act of 1974 and Amendments
Thereto
Complaint by the European Communities. On 5 June 2000, the EC requested consultations
with the US concerning Section 306 of the Trad e Act of 1974, as last amended by Section 407
of the Trade and Development Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-200).  The EC considered thatSection 306, as amended, provides for a mandatory and unilateral revision of the list of
products subject to suspension of GATT 1994 concessions or other Section 301(a) action 120
days after the application of the first suspension and then every 180 days thereafter, in order
to affect imports from Members which have been determined by the United States not to have
implemented recommendations made pursuant to a WTO dispute settlement proceeding.  In
particular, the EC alleged that:
• Section 306, as amended, is in breach of the DSU since it mandates unilateral action
without any prior multilateral control.
• the measure mandates suspension of or threats to suspend concessions or other
obligations other than those on which authorisation was granted by the DSB.  As a
practical result, all US concessions bound in its Schedule of commitments under the
GATT 1994 can, according to the EC, be unilaterally modified at will.
• the measure is in breach of the obligation of equivalence, in that it creates a structural
imbalance between the cumulative level of the suspension of concessions and the level of
nullification and impairment as determined under relevant DSU procedures.
• the measure creates a chilling effect on the market-place, thus affecting the security and
predictability of the multilateral trading system.
Hence, the EC considered that Section 306 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended by
Section 407 of the Trade and Development Act of 2000, is inconsistent with, in particular, the
following WTO provisions: Articles 3.2, 21.5, 22 and 23 of the DSU; Article XVI:4 of the
WTO Agreement; and Articles I, II and XI of the GATT 1994.
33. WT/DS197 – Brazil – Measures on Minimum Import Prices
Complaint by the United States.  On 30 May 2000, the US requested consultations with Brazil
concerning the use of the latter's minimum import prices for customs valuation purposes.  The
measures at issue are Decree No. 2.498/98 and other related statutes and regulations, which
establish a system to verify the declared values of imported goods.  The US asserted that
Brazil utilises this verification system – in conjunction with non-automatic import licensing
procedures – to prohibit or restrict the import of  products with declared values below what the
US considers arbitrarily determined minimum prices.  The US considered that Brazil's
measures are inconsistent with its obligations under Articles 1 through 7, and 12 of the
Customs Valuation Agreement; general notes 1, 2 and 4 of Annex 1 of the Customs Valuation
Agreement; Articles II and XI of the GATT 1994; Articles 1 and 3 of the Agreement on
Import Licensing Procedures; Articles 2 and 7 of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing;
and Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.
34. WT/DS196 – Argentina – Certain Measures on the Protection of Patents and Test Data
Complaint by the United States. On 30 May 2000, the US requested consultations with
Argentina concerning Argentina's legal regimes governing patents in Law 24,481 (as
amended by Law 24,572), Law 24,603, and Decree  260/96; and data protection in Law
24,766 and Regulation 440/98, and in other related measures.  The US considered thatArgentina:WT/DS/OV/7
Page 24
• fails to protect against unfair commercial use of undisclosed test or other data, submitted
as a requirement for market approval of pharmaceutical or agricultural chemicalproducts;
• improperly excludes certain subject matter, including micro-organisms, from
patentability;
• fails to provide prompt and effective provisional measures, such as preliminary
injunctions, for purposes of preventing infringements of patent rights from occurring;
• denies certain exclusive rights for patents, such as the protection of products produced by
patented processes and the right of importation;
• fails to provide certain safeguards for the granting of compulsory licenses, including
timing and justification safeguards for compulsory licenses granted on the basis ofinadequate working;
• improperly limits the authority of its judiciary to shift the burden of proof in civil
proceedings involving the infringements of process patent rights; and
• places impermissible limitations on certain transitional patents so as to limit the
exclusive rights conferred by these patents, and to deny the opportunity for patentees to
amend pending applications in order to claim certain enhanced protection provided bythe TRIPS Agreement.
According to the US, Argentina's legal regimes governing patents and data protection are
therefore inconsistent with Argentina's obligations under the TRIPS Agreement, including
Articles 27, 28, 31, 34, 39, 50, 62, 65 and 70 of the Agreement.
35. WT/DS191 – Ecuador – Definitive Anti-D umping Measure on Cement from Mexico
Complaint by Mexico. On 15 March 2000, Mexico requested consultations with Ecuador
concerning a definitive anti-dumping measure imposed by Ecuador, through publication in
the Official Register No. 361 of 14 January 2000, on imports of cement from Mexico falling
under tariff subheading 2523.29.00, as well as Ecua dor's actions preceding that measure.
Mexico alleged that the definitive anti-dumping measure and the actions that preceded it,including the imposition of the provisional anti-dumping measure and the initiation of the
investigation, violate, inter alia , Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 18 and Annex II of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement as well as Article VI of the GATT 1994.
36. WT/DS187 – Trinidad and Tobago – Provis ional Anti-Dumping Measure on Macaroni
and Spaghetti from Costa Rica
Complaint by Costa Rica. On 17 January 2000, Costa Rica requested consultations with
Trinidad and Tobago in respect of Legal Notice No. 237 of the Ministry of Trade and Industry
of Trinidad and Tobago, pursuant to which provisional anti-dumping duties are imposed on
the importation of macaroni and spaghetti from Costa Rica, the actions preceding thatdecision (see WT/DS185) as well as the 1992 Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties Act
of 1992, as amended by the Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties (Amendment) Act of
1995 and the Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties Regulations of 1996.  Costa Rica
claimed that these measures are inconsistent particularly with certain paragraphs of Articles 1,
2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 18 as well as Annex I and II of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
37. WT/DS186 – United States – Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 and Amendments
Thereto
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 12 January 2000, the EC requested
consultations with the US in respect of Section 337 of the US Tariff Act (19 USC. § 1337)and the related Rules of Practice and Procedure of the International Trade CommissionWT/DS/OV/7
Page 25
contained in Chapter II of Title 19 of the US Code of Federal Regulations.  The EC alleged
that those measures violate Article III of GATT 1994 and TRIPS Agreement Articles 2 (in
conjunction with Article 2 Paris Convention), 3, 9 (in conjunction with Article 5 Berne
Convention), 27, 41, 42, 49, 50 and 51.
38. WT/DS185 – Trinidad and Tobago – Certain Measures Affecting Imports of Pasta from
Costa Rica
Complaint by Costa Rica.  On 18 November 1999, Costa Rica requested consultations with
Trinidad and Tobago in respect of
(i) the anti-dumping investigation being carried out by Trinidad and Tobago at the
request of the company "Cereal Products Li mited" against imports of pasta from the
Costa Rican company "Roma Prince Sociedad Anónima",
(ii) proceedings undertaken as part of a preliminary hearing prior to the initiation of the
anti-dumping investigation, and
(iii) Articles 3 and 5 of the 1996 Antidumping and Countervailing Duties Regulation of
Tobago and Trinidad.
Costa Rica claimed that these measures are inconsistent with Articles 2, 3, 5, 6 and 12 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement.
39. WT/DS183 – Brazil – Measures on Import Licensing and Minimum Import Prices
Complaint by the European Communities.  This request, dated 14 October 1999, is in respect
of a number of Brazilian measures, particularly Brazil's non-automatic licensing system and
the minimum pricing practice, which allegedly restrict EC exports - notably of textile
products, Sorbitol and Carboxymethylcellulose (CMC).  The EC claimed that those Brazilian
measures violate, in particular, Articles II, VIII, X and XI of the GATT 1994; Article 4.2 ofthe Agreement on Agriculture; Articles 1, 3, 5 and 8 of the Agreement on Import Licensing
Procedures; and Articles 1 through 7 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of
the GATT 1994.
40. WT/DS182 – Ecuador – Provisional Anti-Dum ping Measure on Cement from Mexico
Complaint by Mexico.  On 5 October 1999, Mexico requested consultations with Ecuador
concerning a provisional anti-dumping measure imposed by Ecuador, through publication inthe Official Register of 14 July 1999, on imports of cement from Mexico falling under tariff
heading 2523.29.00, as well as Ecuador's actions preceding that measure.  Mexico considered
that the provisional anti-dumping measure and the actions preceding it violate, inter alia ,
Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 18 and Annex II  of the Anti-Dumping Agreement as well as
Article VI of the GATT 1994.
41. WT/DS180 – United States – Reclassi fication of Certain Sugar Syrups
Complaint by Canada. On 6 September 1999 Canada requested consultations with the US in
respect of the proposed reclassification of certain sugar syrups by the US Customs Service.
Canada claimed that these US measures are in violation of Article II of the GATT 1994 andArticle 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  In  addition, Canada alleged that these measures
nullify or impair benefits accruing to it under the same provisions of the GATT and the
Agreement on Agriculture.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 26
42. WT/DS174 – European Communities – Protection of Trademarks and Geographical
Indications for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs
Complaint by the United States.  On 1 June 1999, the US requested consultations with the EC
in respect of the alleged lack of protection of trademarks and geographical indications for
agricultural products and foodstuffs in the EC.  The US contended that EC Regulation2081/92, as amended, does not provide national treatment with respect to geographical
indications and does not provide sufficient protection to pre-existing trademarks that are
similar or identical to a geographical indicati on.  The US considered this situation to be
inconsistent with the EC's obligations und er the TRIPS Agreement, including but not
necessarily limited to Articles 3, 16, 24, 63 and 65 of the TRIPS Agreement.
43. WT/DS172 – European Communities – Measures Relating to the Development of a
Flight Management System
Complaint from the United States. On 21 May 1999, the US requested consultations with the
EC in respect of alleged actionable subsidies granted or maintained to a French company,
Sextant Avionique ("Sextant"), to develop a ne w flight management system ("FMS") adapted
to Airbus aircraft.  The US alleged that the French government has agreed to grant, and theEuropean Commission has approved, a loan, on pr eferential and non-commercial terms, in the
amount of 140 million French francs, to be disbursed over three years, for a project in which
Sextant will develop a FMS adapted to Airbus aircraft.  The US considered that this aid:
• is a specific subsidy within the meaning of Articles 1 and 3 of the SCM Agreement,
which subsidy has caused and continues to cause adverse effects within the meaning of
Article 5 of the SCM Agreement;
• has caused and continues to cause serious prejudice within the meaning of Articles 5(c)
and 6 of the SCM Agreement because the subsidy may involve the direct forgiveness of
debt;
• may displace or impede imports of FMS from the United States into France;
• may displace or impede exports of FMS from the United States to third country markets;
• may cause significant price undercutting by the subsidised product as compared with the
price of a like product of another Member in the same market or may cause significant
price suppression, price depression or lost sales in the same market;and
• has caused and continues to cause a nullification or impairment of benefits accruing
directly or indirectly to it under GATT 1994 within the meaning of Article XXIII:1(b) ofGATT 1994, and Article 5(b) of the SCM Agreement.
44. WT/DS173 – France – Measures Relating to the Development of a Flight Management
System
Complaint by the United States.  On 21 May 1999, the US requested consultations with
France.  This complaint is identical to the one addressed to the EC above (WT/DS172).
45. WT/DS171 – Argentina – Patent Protection for Pharmaceuticals and Test Data
Protection for Agricultural Chemicals
Complaint by the United States.  On 6 May 1999, the US requested consultations with
Argentina in respect of
(i) the alleged absence in Argentina of either patent protection for pharmaceutical
products or an effective system for providing exclusive marketing rights in such
products, andWT/DS/OV/7
Page 27
(ii) Argentina's alleged failure to ensure that changes in its laws, regulations and practice
during the transition period provided under Article 65.2 of the TRIPS Agreement do
not result in a lesser degree of consistency with the provisions of the TRIPS
Agreement.
Under item (i), the US contended that the TRIPS Agreement does not permit WTO Members
to allow third parties to market products subj ect to exclusive marketing rights without the
consent of the right holder.  According to the United States, Argentina's law does not provide
product patent protection for pharmaceutical inventions, or a system that conforms to
Article 70.9 of the TRIPS Agreement with regard to the grant of exclusive marketing rights.
The US therefore contended that Argentina's legal regime appears to be inconsistent with
Articles 27, 65 and 70 of the TRIPS Agreement.
Under item (ii), the US contended that prior to August 1998, Argentina provided a ten year
term of protection against unfair commercial use for undisclosed test data or other data
submitted to Argentine regulatory authorities  in support of applications for marketing
approval for agricultural chemical products.  The US further alleged that since the issuance in1998 of Regulation 440/98, which inter alia  revoked earlier regulations, Argentina has
provided no effective protection for such data against unfair commercial use.  The United
States therefore alleges that Argentina's legal regime is inconsistent with Article 65.5 of the
TRIPS Agreement.
46. WT/DS168 – South Africa – Anti-dumping Duties on the Import of Certain
Pharmaceutical Products from India
Complaint by India.  On 1 April 1999, India requested consultations with South Africa in
respect of a recommendation for the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties by the South
African Board on Tariffs and Trade (BTT), contained in its Report No. 3799, dated 3 October1997, on the import of certain pharmaceutical products from India.  India alleged that South
Africa initiated anti-dumping proceedings against the importation of ampicillin and
amoxycillin of 250mg capsules from India.  The BTT allegedly made a preliminary
determination on 26 March 1997 that ampicillin and amoxycillin of 250mg and 500mg
capsules, exported by M/S Randaxy Laboratories Ltd of India, were being dumped into the
South African Customs Union (SACU).  This was allegedly followed by a recommendation to
impose final duties on these products by the BTT, which was reported on 10 September 1997.India contended that:
• the definition and calculation by the BTT of normal value is inconsistent with South
Africa's WTO obligations, because erroneous methodology was used for determining thenormal value and the resulting margin of dumping;
• the determination of injury was not based on positive evidence and did not include an
evaluation of all relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of
the industry, which led to an erroneous determination of material injury suffered by the
petitioner;
• the South African authorities' establishment of the facts was not proper and that their
evaluation was not unbiased or objective; and
• the South African authorities have not taken into account India's special situation as a
developing country.
India alleged violations of Articles 2, 3, 6(a) to (c) individually and in conjunction with 12, 12
and 15 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; and Articles I and VI of GATT 1994.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 28
47. WT/DS167 – United States – Countervailing Duty Investigation with respect to Live
Cattle from Canada
Complaint by Canada.  On 19 March 1999, Canada requested consultations with the US
concerning the initiation of a countervailing duty investigation by the US, on 22 December
1998, with respect to live cattle from Canada.  Canada alleged that:
• the initiation of this investigation is incons istent with US obligations under the Subsidies
Agreement, including the fact that the written application filed with the US Department of
Commerce was not made by or on behalf of th e domestic industry, and that there was not,
sufficient information provided with respect to the measures or actions alleged to be
subsidies, for purpose of initiating an investigation under the SCM Agreement;
• the measures or actions alleged to be subsidies either are not, in law or fact, subsidies
within the meaning of the Subsidies Agr eement, or do not confer more than a de minimis
level of countervailing subsidy; and
• this initiation of investigation is inconsistent with US obligations under the Agreement on
Agriculture relating to "due restraint".
Canada alleged violations of Articles 1, 2, 10, 11.1 – 11.5, and 13.1 of the Subsidies
Agreement; and Article 13 of the Agreement on Agriculture.
48. WT/DS159 – Hungary – Safeguard Measure on  Imports of Steel Products from the
Czech Republic
Complaint by the Czech Republic.  On 21 January 1999, the Czech Republic requested
consultations with Hungary in respect of the imposition of quantitative restrictions by
Hungary on imports of a broad range of steel products from the Czech Republic.  The Czech
Republic alleged that Hungary imposed a safeguard measure in the form of an import quota
on imports of a broad range of steel products from the Czech Republic, and that this measure
only applies to the Czech Republic.  The Czech Republic contended that these quantitative
restrictions are in breach of Hungary's obligations under GATT Articles I and XIX, as well as
provisions of the Agreement on Safeguards.
49. WT/DS158 – European Communities - Regime for the Importation, Sale and
Distribution of Bananas II
Complaint by Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Panama and the United States.  On 20 January
1999, these countries (complaining parties) requested consultations with the EC in respect ofthe implementation of the recommendations of the DSB in European Communities – Regime
for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas . The complaining parties state that the
15-month reasonable period of time for the EC to implement the DSB's recommendations and
rulings ended on 1 January 1999 (see WT/DS27).  The complaining parties alleged that the
EC modified its regime in a manner that will not permit this dispute to conclude at this time
on the basis of a solution that is acceptable to their governments, and as a result, jointly and
severally, request consultations with the EC concerning the EC banana regime established byEC Regulation 404/93, as amended and implemented by Council Regulation 1637/98 of
20 July 1998 and EC Commission Regulation 2362/98 of 28 October 1998. The complaining
parties contended that their objective is to clarify and discuss in detail with the EC the various
aspects of the EC's modified banana regime, including their effect on the market, their
concerns about their WTO-inconsistency, and ways that the EC might modify its regime inorder to produce a satisfactory settlement of this dispute.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 29
50. WT/DS157 – Argentina – Anti-Dumping Measures  on Imports of Drill Bits from Italy
Complaint from the European Communities.  On 14 January 1998, the EC requested
consultations with Argentina in respect of definitive anti-dumping measures allegedly
imposed by Argentina on imports of drill bits from Italy. The EC stated that on 12 September
1998, Argentina imposed definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of drill bits from Italy.The investigation which led to the imposition of these measures had allegedly been initiated
on 21 February 1997.  The EC alleged that due to the fact that Argentina's investigation
exceeded 18 months, it was in violation of  Article 1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
51. WT/DS154 – European Communities – Measures Affecting Differential and Favourable
Treatment of Coffee
Complaint by Brazil.  On 7 December 1998, Brazil requested consultations with the EC in
respect of the special preferential treatment under the EC's Generalised System of Preferences
(GSP).  Brazil asserted that the EC GSP scheme is applicable to products originating in the
Andean Group of countries and the Central American Common Market countries, that are
conducting programs to combat drug production and trafficking.  In the case of soluble
coffee, this special preferential treatment, contained in Council Regulation (EC) No. 1256/96,
amounts to duty free access into the EC market.  Brazil stated that it is aware that there is a
proposed Council Regulation which would unify al l EC laws and regulations concerning the
operation of the GSP scheme for both agricultural and industrial products.  Brazil contended
that this special treatment adversely affects the importation into the EC of soluble coffee
originating in Brazil.  Brazil alleged that th is special treatment is inconsistent with the
Enabling Clause, as well as with Article I of GATT 1994.  Brazil further alleges that this
special treatment nullifies or impairs benefits accruing to Brazil directly or indirectly under
the cited provisions.
52. WT/DS153 – European Communities – Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and
Agricultural Products
Complaint by Canada.  On 2 December 1998, Canada requested consultations with the EC in
respect of the protection of inventions in the area of pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical
products under the relevant provisions of EC legislation, particularly Council Regulation
(EEC) No. 1768/92 and European Parliament  and Council Regulation (EC) No. 1610/96, in
relation to EC obligations under the TRIPS Agreement.  Canada considered that under the
above Regulations, a patent term extension scheme, which is limited to pharmaceutical andagricultural chemical products, has been implemented.  Canada alleged that Regulations
(EEC) No. 1768/92 and (EC) No. 1610/96 are in consistent with the EC's obligations not to
discriminate on the basis of field of technology, as provided by Article 27.1 of the TRIPS
Agreement, because these Regulations only apply to pharmaceutical and agricultural
products.
53. WT/DS150 – India – Measures Affecting Custom Duties
Complaint by the European Communities. On 30 October 1998, the EC requested consultations
with India concerning a series of increases in  customs duties allegedly implemented by India.
The EC stated that the measures in question relate to Schedule 1 of the 1975 Customs TariffAct, the Special Customs Duty, and the Special Additional Duty.  The EC contended that under
these measures, the aggregate value of tariffs re sulting from the addition of the different duties
applied by India exceed India's WTO bound rates under a series of tariff headings.  The EC
alleged violations of Articles II:1(b) and III:2 of GATT 1994.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 30
54. WT/DS149 – India – Import Restrictions
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 29 October 1998, the EC requested
consultations with India concerning import restrictions allegedly maintained by India under
its Export and Import Policy, 1997-2002, for reasons other than Article XVIII:B of GATT
1994.  The EC stated that India notified these restrictions to the WTO in Part A of Annex I toits notification of 20 May 1997 under paragraph 9 of the Understanding on the Balance-of-
Payments Provisions of GATT 1994 (WT/BOP/N/24).  India claimed that these restrictions
are justified under Article XX and/or Article XXI of GATT 1994.  The EC contended that
these import restrictions constitute an infringement of Articles III, X, XI, XIII and XVII of
GATT 1994, Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, and Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the
Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures, a nd cannot be justified under Articles XX or
XXI of GATT 1994.
55. WT/DS148 – Czech Republic – Measure Affecting Import Duty on Wheat from Hungary
Complaint from Hungary.  On 12 October 1998, Hungary requested consultations with the
Czech Republic in respect of a regulation adopted by the Czech Republic which entered into
force on 9 October 1998, and which allegedly increased the import duty of wheat originatingin Hungary.  Hungary asserted that th e increased import duty on wheat (HS1001.1000,
1001.9099) exceeds several times the respective bound rates in the Czech Schedule for 1998.
Hungary also alleged that it is the only country subject to this measure.  Hungary contended
that this measure is inconsistent with Articles I and II of GATT 1994, and Article 4 of the
Agreement on Agriculture.  Hungary invoked th e urgency provision of the DSU (4.8), due to
the severe economic and trade losses that are being caused by this measure, which was
expected to remain in force until 26 April 1999.
56. WT/DS147 – Japan – Tariff Quotas and Subsidies Affecting Leather
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 8 October 1998, the EC requested
consultations with Japan concerning the management of the tariff quotas for leather and the
subsidies allegedly benefiting the leather industry and "Dowa" regions in Japan.  The EC
stated that the management of the three tariff quotas is specified in a notice published every
year by the Ministry of International Trade & Industry (MITI), which is based on Article 6 of
the Ministerial Order on the tariff quota system for heavy oil, crude oil, etc. The EC
contended that:
• the complexity of the management of the tariff quota system, as well as the fact that
applications for licenses may only be submitted on a single day, appears open tocriticism;
• many licenses are granted for quantities without real economic interest, and some have a
very short validity period;
• the system leads to a situation that deters foreign companies from establishing in Japan
for purposes of importing leather directly;
• subsidies were granted on the basis of the "Law concerning Special Fiscal Measures",
which extended the duration of 15 subsidy programmes; and
• these subsidies are specific and that the total value of these different subsidy programmes
is liable to cause serious prejudice to its interests.
The EC alleged violations of Articles 1(6), 3(5)(g), (h), (i) and (j) of the Import Licensing
Agreement, and Article 6 of the Subsidies Agreement.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 31
57. WT/DS145 – Argentina – Countervailing Duties  on Imports of Wheat Gluten from the
European Communities
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 23 September 1998, the EC requested
consultations with the EC in respect of definitive countervailing duties allegedly imposed by
Argentina on imports of wheat gluten from the EC.  The EC stated that Argentina imposed acountervailing duty on wheat gluten imports from the EC with effect from 23 July 1998.  The
investigation which led to the imposition of these duties had been initiated on 23 October
1996 and, consequently, the EC contended that the investigation exceeded 18 months,
contrary to Article 11.11 of the Subsidies Agreement.  The EC also claimed a violation of
Article 10 of the same Agreement.
58. WT/DS144 – United States – Certain Measure s Affecting the Import of Cattle, Swine
and Grain from Canada
Complaint by Canada.  On 25 September 1998, Canada requested consultations with the US
in respect of certain measures, imposed by the US state of South Dakota and other states,
prohibiting entry or transit to Canadian trucks carrying cattle, swine, and grain.  Canada
alleged that these measures adversely affect the importation into the United States of cattle,swine, and grain originating in Canada.  Canada alleges violations of Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 13
and Annexes B and C of the SPS Agreement; Ar ticles 2, 3, 5 and 7 of the TBT Agreement;
Article 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture; and Articles I, III, V, XI and XXIV:12 of GATT
1994.  Canada also made a claim of nullification or impairment of benefits accruing to it
under the cited Agreements.  Canada invoked Article 4.8 of the DSU for expeditedconsultations in view of the perishable nature of the goods in question.
59. WT/DS143 - Sl ovak Republic – Measure Affecting Import Duty on Wheat from
Hungary
Complaint from Hungary. On 18 September 1998, Hungary requested consultations with the
Slovak Republic in respect of a regulation adopted by the Slovak Republic which entered into
force on 10 September 1998, which allegedly increased the import duty of wheat originating
in Hungary.  Hungary asserted that th e increased import duty on wheat (HS1001.1000,
1001.90) amounts to 2540 SKK/t which equals to approximately 70% ad valorem .  Hungary
alleged that:
• the bound rates for these tariff lines in the Slovak Schedule for 1998 are set at 4.4%
(HS1001.1000), 27% (HS1001.9010) and 22.5% (HS1001.9091, 1001.9099);
• it is the only country subject to this measure; and
• this measure is inconsistent with Articles I and II of GATT 1994, and Article 4 of the
Agreement on Agriculture.
Hungary invoked the urgency provision of the DSU due to the severe economic and trade
losses that are being caused by this measure, which was expected to remain in force until
10 March 1999.
60. WT/DS140 – European Communities – An ti-Dumping Investigations Regarding
Unbleached Cotton Fabrics from India
Complaint by India.  On 3 August 1998, India reque sted consultations with  the EC in respect of
alleged repeated recourse by the EC to anti-dumping investigations on unbleached cottonfabrics (UCF), from India.  India considered, in the light of the information which had
become available before and after the adoption of Regulation 773/98, that:WT/DS/OV/7
Page 32
• the determination of standing, the initiation, the selection of the sample, the determination
of dumping and the injury are inconsistent with the EC's WTO obligations;
• the establishment by the EC of the facts was not proper and that the EC's evaluation of
facts was not unbiased and objective; and
• the EC has not taken into account the special situation of India as a developing country.
India alleged violations of Articles 2.2.1, 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.6, 3.3, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 4.1(I), 5.2, 5.3,
5.4, 5.5, 5.8, 6.10, 7.1(I), 7.4, 9.1, 9.2, 12.1, 12.2 and 15 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement,and Articles I and VI of GATT 1994.  India also alleged nullification and impairment of
benefits accruing to it under the cited agreements.
61. WT/DS137 – European Communities – Measures Affecting Imports of Wood of
Conifers from Canada
Complaint by Canada.  On 17 June 1998, Canada requested consultations with the EC in respect
of certain measures concerning the importation into the EC market of wood of conifers from
Canada.  The measures include, but are not limited to, Council Directive 77/93, of 21 December
1976, as amended by Commission Directiv e 92/103/EEC, of 1 December 1992, and any
relevant measures adopted by EC Member stat es affecting imports of wood of conifers from
Canada into the EC.  Canada alleged that th ese adversely affect the importation into the EC
market of wood of conifers from Canada.  Canada alleged violations of Articles I, III and XI of
GATT 1994, Articles 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the SPS Agreement, and Article 2 of the TBT
Agreement.  Canada also made a claim for nullific ation and impairment of benefits  accruing to
it indirectly under the cited agreements.
62. WT/DS134 – European Communities - Measu res Affecting Import Duties on Rice
Complaint by India.  On 28 May 1998, India reque sted consultations with the EC in respect of
the restrictions allegedly introduced by an EC Regulation establishing a so-called cumulative
recovery system (CRS), for determining certain  import duties on rice, with effect from 1 July
1997.  India contended that the measures introduced  through this new regulation will restrict the
number of importers of rice from India, and will have a limiting effect on the export of rice fromIndia to the EC.  India alleged violations of  Articles I, II, III, VII and XI of GATT 1994,
Articles 1-7, 11 and Annex I of the Customs Va luation Agreement, Articles 1 and 3 of the
Import Licensing Agreement, Article 2 of the TBT Agreement, Article 2 of the SPS Agreement,
and Article 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  India also claimed nullification and impairment
of benefits accruing to it under the various agreements cited.
63. WT/DS133 – Slovak Republic - Measures Concerning the Importation of Dairy
Products and the Transit of Cattle
Complaint by Switzerland.  On 11 May 1998, Switz erland requested consultations with the
Slovak Republic concerning measures imposed by  the Slovak Republic (in particular, a decree
of 6 July 1996) with respect to the importati on of dairy products and the transit of cattle.
Switzerland contended that these measures had a negative impact on Swiss exports of cheese
and cattle.  Switzerland alleged that some of these measures are inconsistent with Articles I, III,
V, X and XI of GATT 1994, Article 5 of the SPS Agreement, and Article 5 of the Import
Licensing Agreement.
64. WT/DS131 – France - Certain Income Tax Measures Constituting Subsidies
Complaint by the United States.  On 5 May 1998, the US requested consultations with France in
respect of prohibited subsidies provided by Fr ance.  The United States alleges that, based on
unofficial English translations of the relevant le gislation and descriptions in secondary sources,WT/DS/OV/7
Page 33
it is its understanding that under French income tax law, a French company may deduct
temporarily, certain start-up expenses of its foreign operations through a tax-deductible reserve
account.  The US also believed that a French company may establish a special reserve equal to
ten percent of its receivable position at year e nd for medium-term credit risks in connection with
export sales.  The US contended that each of these measures constitute an export subsidy, andthat the deduction for start-up expenses constitute an import substitution subsidy, and as such
both measures violate Article 3 of the SCM Agreement.
65. WT/DS130 – Ireland - Certain Income Tax Measures Constituting Subsidies
Complaint by the United States.  On 5 May 1998, th e US requested consultations with Ireland in
respect of prohibited subsidies provided by Ir eland.  The US alleged that, based on unofficial
copies of the relevant legislation and descript ions in secondary sources, it is its understanding
that under Irish income tax law, "special tradin g houses" qualify for a special tax rate in respect
of trading income from the export sale of goods  manufactured in Ireland.  The US contended
that this measure constitutes an export subsidy and as such violates Article 3 of the SCM
Agreement.
66. WT/DS129 – Greece - Certain Income Tax Measures Constituting Subsidies
Complaint by the United States.  On 5 May 1998, the US requested consultations with Greece
in respect of prohibited subsidies provided by Greece.  The US alleged that, based on unofficial
English translations of relevant legislation and descriptions in secondary sources, it is its
understanding that under Greek income tax law, Greek exporters are entitled to a special annualtax deduction calculated as a percentage of expor t income. The US contended that this measure
constitutes an export subsidy and as such violates Article 3 of the SCM Agreement.
67. WT/DS128 – Netherlands - Certain Income Tax Measures Constituting Subsidies
Complaint by the United States.  On 5 May 1998, the US requested consultations with the
Netherlands in respect of prohibited subsidies provided by the Netherlands.  The US alleged
that, based on unofficial English translations of  the relevant legislation and descriptions in
secondary sources, it is its understanding that under Dutch income tax law, exporters may
establish a special "export reserve" for income derived from export sales.  The US contended
that this measure constitutes an export subsidy and as such violates Article 3 of the SCM
Agreement.
68. WT/DS127 – Belgium - Certain Income Tax Measures Constituting Subsidies
Complaint by the United States.  On 5 May 1998, the US requested consultations with Belgium
in respect of prohibited subsidies provided by Belgium.  The US alleged that, based on
unofficial English translations of relevant legisl ation and descriptions in secondary sources, it is
its understanding that under Belgium income tax law, Belgian corporate taxpayers receive aspecial BEF 400,000 (index linked) tax exemption for recruiting a departmental head for
exports (known as an "export manager").  The US contended that this measure constitutes an
export subsidy and as such violates  Article 3 of the SCM Agreement.
69. WT/DS123 – Argentina - Safeguard Measures on Imports of Footwear
Complaint by Indonesia.  On 23 April 1998, Indone sia requested consultations with Argentina
in respect of the same provisional and definitive safeguard measures imposed by Argentina in
the dispute WT/DS121.  On 15 April 1999, Indonesia re quested the establishment of a panel.  In
a communication dated 10 May 1999, Indonesia info rmed the DSB that it was not pursuing itsWT/DS/OV/7
Page 34
request for a panel at the next DSB meeting, but  that this was without prejudice to its rights
under the DSU to resurrect the panel request.
70. WT/DS120 – India - Measures Affectin g Export of Certain Commodities
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 16 March 1998, the EC requested consultations
with India in respect of India's EXIM Polic y (1997-2002), which allegedly sets up a negative
list for the export of several commodities.  The EC alleged that under this policy, raw hides and
skins are listed as products the export of which requires an export licence, and that these
licences are systematically refused.  The EC conte nded that this is in effect an export embargo
and violates Article XI of GATT 1994. On  12 October 2000, the EC requested the
establishment of a panel. At its meeting of 23 October 2000, the DSB deferred the
establishment of a panel.
71. WT/DS118 – United States - Harbour Maintenance Tax
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 6 February 1998, the EC requested consultations
with the US concerning the US Harbour Ma intenance Tax (HMT), allegedly introduced by
legislation in the US.  The EC contended that the HMT violates Articles I, II, III, VIII and X ofGATT 1994, as well as the Understanding on the Interpretation of Article II:1(B) of GATT
1994.
72. WT/DS117 – Canada - Measures Affecting Film Distribution Services
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 20 January 1998, the EC requested consultations
with Canada in respect of Canada's alleged measures affecting film distribution services,
including the 1987 Policy Decision on film dist ribution and its application to European
companies.  The EC contended that these measures violate Articles II and III of GATS.
73. WT/DS116 – Brazil - Measures Affecting Payment Terms for Imports
Complaint by the European Communities. On 9 January 1998, the EC requested consultations
with Brazil in respect of measures affecting payment terms for imports allegedly introduced by
the Central Bank of Brazil.  The EC contended that these measures violate Articles 3 and 5 of
the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures.
74. WT/DS115 – European Communities - Measure s Affecting the Grant of Copyright and
Neighbouring Rights
Complaint by the United States.  On 6 January 1998, the US requested consultations with the
EC regarding similar measures as in WT/DS82 in respect of Ireland.  On 9 January 1998, the
US requested the establishment of a panel.
75. WT/DS112 – Peru - Countervail ing Duty Investigation against Imports of Buses from
Brazil
Complaint by Brazil.  On 23 December 1997, Br azil requested consultations with Peru in
respect of a countervailing duty investigation bein g carried out by Peru against imports of buses
from Brazil.  Brazil contended that the proced ures followed by the Peruvian authorities to
initiate this investigation are inconsistent with  Articles 11 and 13.1 of the Subsidies Agreement.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 35
76. WT/DS111 – United States - Tariff Rate Quota for Imports of Groundnuts
Complaint by Argentina.  On 19 December 1997, Argentina requested consultations with the
US in respect of the alleged commercial detr iment to Argentina resu lting from a restrictive
interpretation by the US of the tariff rate quot a negotiated by the two countries during the
Uruguay Round, regarding the importation of groundnuts.  Argentina alleged violations of
Articles II, X and XII of GATT 1994, Articles 1, 4 and 15 of the Agreement on Agriculture,
Article 2 of the Agreement on Rules of Or igin, and Article 1 of the Import Licensing
Agreement.  Nullification and impairment of benefits is also alleged.
77. WT/DS109 – Chile - Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages
Complaint by the United States.  On 11 December 1997, the US requested consultations with
Chile in respect of Chile's internal taxes on alcoholic beverages, which allegedly impose ahigher tax on imported spirits than on pisco , a locally brewed spirit.  The US contended that this
differential treatment of imported spirits viol ates Article III:2 of GATT 1994.  Taxes on these
beverages were at the time the subject of a complaint by the EC (WT/DS87), in respect of
which a panel had already been established.
78. WT/DS107 – Pakistan - Export Measures Affecting Hides and Skins
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 7 November 1997, the EC requested
consultations with Pakistan in respect of a No tification enacted by the Ministry of Commerce of
Pakistan prohibiting the export of, inter alia , hides and skins and wet blue leather made from
cow hides and cow calf hides.  The EC cont ended that this measure limits access of EC
industries to competitive sourcing of raw and semi-finished materials.
79. WT/DS105 – European Communities - Regime for the Importation, Sale and
Distribution of Bananas
Complaint by Panama.  On 24 October 1997, Panama requested consultations with the EC in
respect of the EC's regime for the importation, sale and distribution of bananas as established
through Regulation 404/93, as well as any subseque nt legislation, regulations or administrative
measures adopted by the EC, including those reflecting the Framework Agreement on Bananas.
Panama did not specify the WTO provisions whic h the EC regime violates.  This is the same
regime that was the subject of a successful challenge by the US, Ecuador, Guatemala,
Honduras, and Mexico (WT/DS27).
80. WT/DS104 – European Communities - Measures Affecting the Exportation of Processed
Cheese
Complaint by the United States.  On 8 October 1997, the US requested consultations with the
EC in respect of export subsidies allegedl y granted by the EC on processed cheese without
regard to the export subsidy reduction commitments  of the EC.  The US contended that these
measures by the EC distort markets for dairy pr oducts and adversely affect US sales of dairy
products.  The US alleged violations of Articles 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Agreement on
Agriculture, and Article 3 of the Subsidies Agreement.
81. WT/DS100 – United States - Measures Affecting Imports of Poultry Products
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 18 August 1997, the EC requested consultations
with the US in respect of a ban on imports of  poultry and poultry products from the EC by the
US Department of Agriculture's Food Safety Insp ection Service, and any related measures.  The
EC contended that although the ban is allege dly on grounds of product safety, the ban does notWT/DS/OV/7
Page 36
indicate the grounds upon which EC poultry products have suddenly become ineligible for entry
into the US market.  The EC considered that the ba n is inconsistent with Articles I, III, X and XI
of GATT 1994, Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and Annex C of  the SPS Agreement, or Article 2 and 5 of
the TBT Agreement.
82. WT/DS97 – United States - Countervailing Duty Investigation of Imports of Salmon
from Chile
Complaint by Chile.  On 5 August 1997, Chile requested consultations with the US in respect of
a countervailing duty investigation initiated by the US Department of Commerce against
imports of salmon from Chile.  Chile contended that  the decision to initiate an investigation was
taken in the absence of sufficient evidence of injury, in violation of Article 11.2 and 11.3.  Chile
also contended a violation of Ar ticle 11.4, in relation to the representative status of producers of
salmon fillets.
83. WT/DS82 – Ireland - Measures Affecting th e Grant of Copyright and Neighbouring
Rights
Complaint by the United States. On 14 May 1997, th e US requested consultations with Ireland
in respect Ireland's alleged failure to grant c opyright and neighbouring rights under its law.  The
US contended that this failure violates Ir eland's obligations under Articles 9-14, 63, 65 and 70
of the TRIPS Agreement.  On 9 January 1998, the United States requested the establishment of
a panel.
84. WT/DS81 – Brazil - Measures Af fecting Trade and Investment in the Automotive Sector
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 7 May 1997, the EC requested consultations
with Brazil in respect of certain measures in the trade and investment sector implemented by
Brazil, including in partic ular, Law No. 9440 of 14 Marc h 1997, Law No. 9449 of 14 March
1997, and Decree No. 1987 of 20 August 1996.  The EC  contended that these measures violate
Articles I:1 and III:4 of GATT 1994, Articles 3, 5 and 27.4 of the Subsidies Agreement, and
Article 2 of the TRIMs Agreement.  The EC al so claimed for nullification and impairment of
benefits under both GATT 1994 and the Subsidie s Agreement.  See also WT/DS51, WT/DS52
and WT/DS65.
85. WT/DS80 – Belgium - Measures Affecting Commercial Telephone Directory Services
Complaint by the United States.  On 2 May 1997, the US requested consultations with Belgium
in respect of certain measures of the Kingdom of Belgium governing the provision of
commercial telephone directory services.  Thes e measures include the imposition of conditions
for obtaining a license to publish commercial dire ctories, and the regulation of the acts, policies,
and practices of BELGACOM N.V. with resp ect to telephone directory services.  The US
alleged violations of Articles II, VI, VIII and XVII of GATS, as well as nullification andimpairment of benefits accruing to it under the specific GATS commitments made by the EC on
behalf of Belgium.
86. WT/DS78 – United States - Safeguard Measure Against Imports of Broom Corn Brooms
Complaint by Colombia.  On 28 April 1997, Colomb ia requested consultations with the US in
respect of US Presidential Proclamation 6961 of 28 November 1996, adopting a safeguard
measure against imports of broom and corn broo ms.  Colombia contended that the adoption of
this safeguard measure is inconsistent with the obligations of the US under Articles 2, 4, 5, 9
and 12 of the Agreement on Safeguards, Artic les II, XIII and XIX of GATT 1994.  Colombia
also claimed for nullification and im pairment of benefits under GATT 1994.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 37
87. WT/DS71 – Canada - Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft
Complaint by Brazil.  On 10 March 1997, Brazil requested consultations with Canada in respect
of the same measures complained of in WT/D S70.  However, the request was made pursuant to
Article 7 of the Subsidies Agreement.  In this request, Brazil contended that the measures areactionable subsidies within the meaning of Part III of the Subsidies Agreement, and cause
adverse effects within the meaning of Article 5 of the Agreement.
88. WT/DS66 – Japan - Measures Affecting Imports of Pork
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 15 January 1997, the EC requested consultations
with Japan in respect of certain measures a ffecting imports of pork and its processed products
imposed by Japan. The EC contended that these m easures are in violation of Japan's obligations
under Articles I, X:3 and XIII of the GATT 1994.  The EC also contended that these measures
nullify or impair benefits accruing to it under the GATT 1994.
89. WT/DS65 – Brazil - Certain Measures Affecting Trade and Investment in the
Automotive Sector
Complaint by the United States.  On 10 January 1997, the US requested consultations with
Brazil concerning more or less the same measures as in WT/DS52 above. However, this request
also included measures adopted by Brazil subseque nt to consultations held with the US pursuant
to the request under WT/DS52, which include measures conferring benefits to certain
companies located in Japan, the Republic of Korea, and the EC.  The US alleged violationsunder Articles I:1 and III:4 of GATT 1994, Article 2 of the TRIMs Agreement, and Articles 3
and 27.4 of the SCM Agreement. The United States  also made a nullification and impairment of
benefits claim under Article XXIII:1(b) of GATT 1994.
90. WT/DS63 – United States - Anti-Dumping Mea sures on Imports of Solid Urea from the
Former German Democratic Republic
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 28 November 1996, the EC requested
consultations with the US in respect of Anti-Dumping duties imposed on exports of solid urea
from the former German Democratic Republic by the United States. The EC contended that
theses measures violate Articles 9 and 11 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
91. WT/DS61 – United States - Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products
Complaint by the Philippines.  On 25 October 1996, the Philippines requested consultations
with the US in respect of a complaint by th e Philippines regarding a ban on the importation of
certain shrimp and shrimp products from the Philippines imposed by the US under Section 609
of US Public Law 101-62.  Violations of Articles I, II, III, VIII, XI and XIII of GATT 1994 and
Article 2 of the TBT Agreement are alleged.  A nullification and impairment of benefits underGATT 1994 is also alleged.  (See WT/DS58).
92. WT/DS53 – Mexico - Customs Valuation of Imports
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 27 August 1996, the EC requested consultations
with Mexico concerning the Mexican Customs La w.  The EC claimed that Mexico applies CIF
value as the basis of customs valuation of im ports originating in non-NAFTA countries, while it
applies FOB value for imports originating in NAFTA countries.  Violation of GATT
Article XXIV:5(b) is alleged.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 38
93. WT/DS52 – Brazil - Certain Measures Affecting Trade and Investment in the
Automotive Sector
Complaint by the United States.  On 9 August 1996, the US requested consultations with Brazil
concerning the same measures as identified in Japan's request in WT/DS51.  Violations of the
TRIMs Agreement Article 2, GATT Articles I:1 and III:4 as well as the Subsidies AgreementArticles 3 and 27.4 are alleged.  In addition, the United States also made a non-violation claim
under GATT Article XXIII:1(b).
94. WT/DS51 – Brazil - Certain Au tomotive Investment Measures
Complaint by Japan.  On 30 July 1996, Japan requested consultations with Brazil concerning
certain automotive investment measures taken by  the Brazilian government.  Violations of the
TRIMs Agreement Article 2, GATT Articles I:1, III:4 and XI:1 as well as the SubsidiesAgreement Articles 3, 27.2 and 27.4 are alleged.  In addition, Japan made a non-violation claim
under GATT Article XXIII:1(b).
95. WT/DS47 – Turkey - Restrictions on Im ports of Textile and Clothing Products
Complaint by Thailand.  On 20 June 1996, Thailand requested consultations with Turkey
concerning Turkey's imposition of quantitative re strictions on imports of textile and clothing
products from Thailand. Violations of GATT Articles I, II, XI and XIII as well as Article 2 of
the Textiles Agreement are alleged.  Earlier, Hong Kong (WT/DS29) and India (WT/DS34)
separately requested consultations with Turkey on the same measure.
96. WT/DS45 – Japan - Measures Affecting Distribution Services
Complaint by the United States.  On 13 June 1996, the US requested consultations with Japan
concerning Japan's measures affecting distributi on services (not limited to the photographic film
and paper sector) through the operation of the Large-Scale Retail Store Law, which regulates
the floor space, business hours and holidays of supe rmarkets and department stores.  Violations
of the GATS Article III (Transparency) and Artic le XVI (Market Access) are alleged.  The US
also alleged that these measures nullify or impa ir benefits accruing to the US (a non-violation
claim).  The US requested further consulta tions with Japan on 20 September 1996, expanding
the factual and legal basis of its claim.
97. WT/DS41 – Korea - Measures Concerning Inspection of Agricultural Products
Complaint by the United States.  On 24 May 1996, the US requested consultations with Korea
concerning testing, inspection and other measures required for the importation of agricultural
products into Korea.  The US claimed that these measures restrict imports and appear to be
inconsistent with the WTO Agreement.  Violations of GATT Articles III and XI, SPS Articles
2, 5 and 8, TBT Articles 2, 5 and 6, and Article  4 of the Agreement on Agriculture are
alleged.  The US requested consultations with Korea on similar issues on 4 April 1995(WT/DS3).
98. WT/DS30 – Brazil - Countervailing Duties on Imports of Desiccated Coconut and
Coconut Milk Powder from Sri Lanka
Complaint by Sri Lanka.  On 23 February 1996, Sri Lanka requested consultations with Brazil
concerning Brazil's imposition of counterva iling duties on Sri Lanka's export of desiccated
coconut and coconut milk powder.  Sri Lanka alle ged that those measures are inconsistent with
GATT Articles I, II and VI and Article 13(a) of the Agriculture Agreement (the so-called peace
clause).  See WT/DS22.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 39
99. WT/DS29 – Turkey - Restrictions on Im ports of Textile and Clothing Products
Complaint by Hong Kong.  On 12 February 1996, Hong Kong requested consultations with
Turkey concerning Turkey's quantitative restricti ons on imports of textile and clothing products.
Hong Kong claimed that those measures are in violation of GATT Articles XI and XIII.  The
background to this dispute is a recently concluded customs union agreement between Turkey
and the European Communities.  Hong Kong claimed that GATT Article XXIV does not entitle
Turkey to impose new quantitative restrictions in the present case.
100. WT/DS3 – Korea - Measures Concerning the Testing and Inspection of Agricultural
Products
Complaint by the United States.  On 6 April 1995, the US requested consultations with Korea
involving testing and inspection requirements w ith respect to imports of agricultural products
into Korea.  The measures are alleged to be in violation of GATT Articles III or XI, Articles 2
and 5 of the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS), TBT Articles 5 and 6
and Agriculture Article 4.  (See WT/DS41).
II. ACTIVE PANELS
A. ACTIVE PANELS
1. WT/DS164 – Argentina – Measures Affecting Imports of Footwear
Complaint by the United States.  On 1 March 1999, the United States requested consultations
with Argentina in respect of certain measures implemented by Argentina affecting imports offootwear.  The United States contended that:
• in November 1998, Argentina adopted Resolution 1506 modifying Resolution 987 of 10
September 1997, which had established safeguard duties on imports of footwear fromnon-MERCOSUR countries.  Resolution 1506 allegedly imposes a tariff-rate quota
(TRQ) on such footwear imports in addition to the safeguard duties previously imposed,postpones any liberalization of the original safeguard duty until 30 November 1999, and
liberalizes the TRQ only once during the life of the measure;
• Argentina has not notified this measure to the Committee on Safeguards; and
• the United States alleged violations of Articles 5.1, 7.4 and 12 of the Agreement on
Safeguards.
Further to the request of the United States, the DSB established a panel at its meeting of
26 July 1999.  The panel has not yet been composed.  See also complaint by Indonesia
(WT/DS123) and complaint by the EC (WT/DS121).
2. WT/DS188 – Nicaragua – Measures Affecting Imports from Honduras and Colombia (I)
Complaint by Colombia.  On 17 January 2000, Colombia requested consultations with
Nicaragua  in respect of Nicaragua's Law 325 of 1999, which provides for the imposition of
charges on goods and services from Honduras and Colombia, as well as regulatory Decree129-99.  Colombia claimed that these measures are inconsistent, inter alia , with Articles I and
II of GATT 1994. Further to Colombia's request, the DSB established a panel at its meeting of
18 May 2000.  Canada, Costa Rica, the EC, Hondur as and the US reserved their third-party
rights.  This panel has not yet been composed.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 40
3. WT/DS195 – Philippines – Mea sures Affecting Trade and Investment in the Motor
Vehicle Sector
Complaint by the United States. On 23 May 2000, the US requested consultations with the
Philippines in respect of certain measures in the Philippines' Motor Vehicle Development
Program ("MVDP"), including the Car Development Program, the Commercial VehicleDevelopment Program, and the Motorcycle Development Program.  The United States
asserted that:
• the MVDP provided that motor vehicle manufacturers located in the Philippines who
meet certain requirements are entitled to import parts, components and finished vehicles
at a preferential tariff rate;
• foreign manufacturers' import licenses for parts, components and finished vehicles are
conditioned on compliance with these requirements.  Among the requirements referred to
by the United States are the requirement that manufacturers use parts and componentsproduced in the Philippines and that they earn a percentage of the foreign exchange
needed to import those parts and components by exporting finished vehicles; and
• The United States considered that these measures are inconsistent with the obligations of
the Philippines under Articles III:4, III:5 a nd XI:1 of the GATT 1994, Articles 2.1 and 2.2
of the TRIMS Agreement, and Article 3.1(b) of the SCM Agreement.
On 12 October 2000, the US requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 23
October 2000, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to
establish a panel by the US, the DSB established a panel at its meeting of 17 November 2000.
India and Japan reserved their third party rights.  This panel has not yet been composed.
4. WT/DS204 – Mexico – Measures Affecting Telecommunications Services
Complaint by the United States.  On 17 August 2000, the US requested consultations with
Mexico in respect of Mexico's commitments and obligations under the GATS with respect to
basic and value-added telecommunications services.  According to the United States, since
the entry into force of the GATS, Mexico has adopted or maintained anti-competitive anddiscriminatory regulatory measures, tolerated certain privately-established market access
barriers, and failed to take needed regulatory action in Mexico's basic and value-added
telecommunications sectors.  The US claimed that Mexico had, for example:
• enacted and maintained laws, regulations, rules, and other measures that deny or limit
market access, national treatment, and additional commitments for service suppliers
seeking to provide basic and value-added telecommunications services into and within
Mexico;
• failed to issue and enact regulations, permits, or other measures to ensure implementation
of Mexico's market access, national treatment, and additional commitments for servicesuppliers seeking to provide basic and value-added telecommunications services into and
within Mexico;
• failed to enforce regulations and other measures to ensure compliance with Mexico's
market access, national treatment, and additional commitments for service suppliersseeking to provide basic and value-added telecommunications services into and within
Mexico;
• failed to regulate, control and prevent its major supplier, Teléfonos de México
("Telmex"), from engaging in activity that denies or limits Mexico's market access,
national treatment, and additional commitments  for service suppliers seeking to provide
basic and value-added telecommunications services into and within Mexico; andWT/DS/OV/7
Page 41
• failed to administer measures of general application governing basic and value-added
telecommunications services in a reasonable, objective, and impartial manner, ensure that
decisions and procedures used by Mexico's telecommunications regulator are impartial
with respect to all market participants, and ensure access to and use of public
telecommunications transport networks and services on reasonable and non-
discriminatory terms and conditions for the supply of basic and value-addedtelecommunications services.
The United States considered that the alleged action and inaction on the part of Mexico may
be inconsistent with Mexico's GATS commitments and obligations, including Articles VI,
XVI, and XVII; Mexico's additional commitments under Article XVIII as set forth in the
Reference Paper inscribed in Mexico's Schedule of Specific Commitments, including Sections
1, 2, 3, and 5; and the GATS Annex on Telecommunications, including Sections 4 and 5.
On 10 November 2000, the United States requested the establishment of a panel.  On the
same date, the United States notified to the DSB a request for consultations concerning
several recent measures adopted by Mexico affecting trade in telecommunication services.  At
its meeting on 12 December 2000, the DSB deferred establishment of a panel.  On 13February 2002, the United States requested the establishment of a panel.  In particular, the
United States claimed that Mexico's measures had:
• failed to ensure that Telmex provides interconnection to U.S. crossborder basic telecom
suppliers on reasonable rates, terms and conditions;
• failed to ensure U.S. basic telecom suppliers reasonable and non-discriminatory access to
and use of public telecom networks and services;
• did not provide national treatment to U.S.-owned commercial agencies; and
• did not prevent Telmex from engaging in anti-competitive practices.
At its meeting on 8 March 2002, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  On 18 April
2002, India joined as a third party to the dispute.  On 19 April 2002, Honduras joined as a
third party to the dispute.  On 23 April 2002, Australia joined as a third party.  On 24 April
2002, Brazil joined as a third party.  At its meeting on 27 April 2002, the panel wasestablished.  Canada, Cuba, the EC, Guatemala, Japan and Nicaragua reserved their third-
party rights to participate in the proceedings.
5. WT/DS206 – United States – Anti-Dumping a nd Countervailing Measures on Steel Plate
From India
Complaint by India.  On 4 October 2000, India requested consultations with the United States
concerning:
(i) final affirmative determinations of sales of certain cut-to-length carbon quality steel
plate products from India at less than fair value by US Department of Commerce(DOC) on 13 December 1999 and affirmed on 10 February 2000;
(ii) interpretation and use of provisions relating to facts available in the anti-dumping and
countervailing duty investigations by DOC; and
(iii) determination and interpretation by the US International Trade Commission (ITC) of
negligibility, cumulation and material injury caused by the said Indian steel imports.
India considered that these determinations are erroneous and based on deficient procedures
contained in various provisions of US anti-dumping and countervailing duty law.  According
to India, these determinations and provisions raise questions concerning the obligations of the
United States under the GATT 1994, the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the SCM Agreement,WT/DS/OV/7
Page 42
and the Agreement establishing the WTO (WTO Agreement). India considered that the
provisions of these agreements with which these measures and determinations appear to be
inconsistent, include, but are not limited to, the following: Articles VI and X of the GATT
1994; Articles 1, 2, 3 (especially 3.3), 5 (especially 5.8), 6 (especially 6.8), 12, 15, 18.4 and
Annex II of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; Articles 10, 11 (especially 11.9), 15 (especially15.3), 22 and 27 (especially 27.10) of the SCM Agreement; Article XVI of the WTO
Agreement.
Further to India's request, the DSB established a Panel at its meeting of 24 July 2001.  Chile,
the EC and Japan reserved their third-rights.  On 16 October 2001, India requested the
Director-General to determine the composition of the Panel.  On 26 October 2001, the
Director-General composed the Panel.  On 16 April 2002, the Chairman of the Panelinformed the DSB that the Panel would not be able to complete its work in six months in light
of scheduling conflicts.  The Panel expected to complete its work in June 2002, depending on
translation.
6. WT/DS211– Egypt – Definitive Anti-Dumping  Measures on Steel Rebar from Turkey
Complaint by Turkey.  On 6 November 2000, Turkey requested consultations with Egypt
concerning an anti-dumping investigation by the Egyptian Ministry of Trade and Supply with
respect to imports of rebar from Turkey. The investigation was completed and the final report
released on 21 October 1999. As a result of the investigation, anti-dumping duties were
imposed, ranging from 22.63-61.00 per cent ad valorem.
Turkey considered that:
• Egypt made determinations of injury and dumping in that investigation without a proper
establishment of the facts and based on an evaluation of the facts that was neitherunbiased nor objective;
• during the investigation of material injury or threat thereof and the causal link, Egypt
acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 6.1 and 6.2 of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement; and
• during the investigation of sales at less than normal value, Egypt violated Article X:3 of
the GATT 1994, as well as Articles 2.2, 2.4, 6.1, 6.2, 6.6, 6.7 and 6.8, and Annex II,
Paragraphs 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7 and Annex I, Paragraph 7 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
On 3 May 2001, Turkey requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 16 May
2001, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish
a panel by Turkey, the DSB established a panel at its meeting of 20 June 2001.  Chile, the EC,
Japan and the US reserved their third party rights.  On 18 July 2001, the Panel was composed.
7. WT/DS212 – United States – Countervailin g Measures concerning Certain Products
from the European Communities
Request by the European Communities.  On 10 November 2000, the EC requested
consultations with the US concerning the continued application by the United States of
countervailing duties on a number of products.  In particular, the EC claimed that:
• The continued application by the US of countervailing duties is based on an irrefutable
presumption that non-recurring subsidies granted to a former producer of goods, prior to a
change of ownership, "pass through" to the current producer of the goods following the
change of ownership.  Accordin g to the EC, this is what the US Department of Commerce
("DOC") refers to as its " change in ownership" methodology;WT/DS/OV/7
Page 43
• According to the EC, this approach wa s found by the Appellate Body in " United States –
Imposition of Countervailing duties on Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth CarbonSteel Products Originating in the United Kingdom" to be inconsistent with the SCM
Agreement. In the light of these findings, the EC considered that the continued
application of the " change in ownership" methodology, and the continued imposition of
duties based on it, are in breach of Articles 10, 19 and 21 of the SCM Agreement, becausethere is no proper determination of a benefit to the producer of the goods under
investigation, as required by Article 1.1(b) of the SCM Agreement;
• The EC referred to, and included in this request for consultations, 12 US countervailing
duty orders
3 where this " change in ownership " methodology was applied.  All these cases
involve alleged non-recurring subsidies granted to firms prior to a change of ownership;
• Furthermore, the EC considered that if the US had properly examined the nature of the
change of ownership in each of these cases, it would have found that it took place for fair
market value, and that in such a case no benefit, as defined by Article 1.1(b) of the SCM
Agreement read in conjunction with Article 14, was conferred on the producers of the
goods subject to the duties by previous financial contributions from the Government to
other producers; and
• According to the EC, in these circumstances , the amount of countervailing duty would
have been greatly reduced, or in some cases, zero.
On 1 February 2001, the EC requested further consultations with the US.  Failing
consultations and further to the request of the EC, the DSB established a panel at its meeting
of 10 September 2001.  Brazil, India and Mexico  reserved their third-party rights.  On 25
October 2001, the EC requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the
Panel.  On 5 November 2001, the Panel was composed.  On 18 April 2002, the Chairman of
the Panel informed the DSB that it would not be able to complete its work in six months dueto the complexity of the matter.  The Panel expected to complete its work by mid July 2002.
8. WT/DS213 – United States – Countervailin g Duties on Certain Corrosion-Resistant
Carbon Steel Flat Products from Germany
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 10 November 2000, the EC requested
consultations with the US in respect of countervailing duties imposed by the US on imports of
certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products ("corrosion resistant steel"), dealt with
under US case number C-428-817.  This dispute relates, in particular, to the final results of a
full sunset review of the above measure, carried out by the US Department of Commerce
("DOC") and published in the US Federal Register No. 65 FR 47407 of 2 August 2000.  Inthis decision, the DOC found that revocation of the countervailing duty order would be likely
to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy.  The EC considered that
this finding is inconsistent with the obligations of the US under the SCM Agreement and, in
particular, in breach of Articles 10, 11.9 and 21 (notably 21.3) thereof.  In particular, the EC
claimed as follows:
                                                     
3 Original imposition of countervailing duties (post-WTO measures) :  Stainless Sheet and Strip in
Coils from France (C-427-815); Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Quality Steel from France (C-427-817); Certain
Pasta from Italy (C-475-819); Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in coils from Italy (C-475-821); Certain StainlessSteel Wire Rod from Italy (C-475-823); Stainless Steel Plate in coils from Italy (C-475-825); Certain Cut-to-length Carbon-quality steel plate from Italy (C-475-827). Administrative reviews: Cold-Rolled Carbon Steel
Flat Products from Sweden (C-401-401); Cut-to Length Carbon Steel Plate from Sweden (C-401-804); Grain-oriented electrical steel from Italy * (C-475-812). Sunset reviews: Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from
United Kingdom (C-412-815); Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from France
(C-427-810); Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Germany (C-428-817); Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Platefrom Spain (C-469-804).
* 
Preliminary determination, plus final sunset resultsWT/DS/OV/7
Page 44
• The countervailing measure was first imposed by DOC prior to the entry into force of the
WTO Agreement. The original rate of countervailing duty was 0.60%. In the sunset
review, the DOC had found that subsidization will continue at a rate of 0.54%. As with
the rate from the original investigation, this subsidy rate would be de minimis  in a new
investigation and immediate termination would be required under Article 11.9 of theSCM Agreement, since the amount of subsidy is below 1% ad valorem . The EC
considered that Article 11.9 applies also in sunset reviews of countervailing measures.
These reviews have the same effect as new investigations. They enable countervailing
duties to be re-imposed and maintained for a further period of five years. In this respect
they are fundamentally different from the retrospective duty assessment mentioned in
footnote 52 of the SCM Agreement (the so-called "administrative reviews" in US
practice), in which the DOC maintains the 0.5% de minimis  threshold which appears to
have been erroneously used by DOC in this case.
• The EC further considered that, under Article 21.3 of the SCM Agreement, countervailing
duties have to be terminated after five years, unless the investigating authorities
determine that their expiry would be likely to lead to, inter alia , the continuation or
recurrence of subsidization. According to the EC, it is therefore for the DOC to make a
positive demonstration to this effect. The EC considered that the DOC had not made sucha demonstration, but, rather, that it had merely found that subsidies of less than the
de minimis  level provided for in Article 11.9 will continue. The EC did not consider that
the presence of a level of subsidy which would automatically lead to the termination of a
new investigation can be sufficient to warrant a further five years of countervailing
measures in a sunset review, unless it can be demonstrated, on the basis of positiveevidence, that there is a likelihood of the am ount of subsidy increasing. According to the
EC, in the present case, there is no possibility of any such increase.
On 5 February 2001, the EC requested further consultations.  As the consultations failed, a
panel was established by the DSB on 10 September 2001 further to the request of the EC.Japan and Norway reserved their third-party rights.  On 18 October 2001, the EC requested
the Director-General to determine the compos ition of the Panel.  On 26 October 2001, the
Director-General composed the Panel.  On 12 April 2002, the Chairman of the Panel
informed the DSB that the Panel would not be able to complete its work within six months
due to the parties' wish to use the maximum time periods prescribed in Appendix 3 of theDSU.  The Panel expected to complete its work by July 2002.
9. WT/DS214 – United States – Definitive Safe guard Measures on Imports of Steel Wire
Rod and Circular Welded Carbon Quality Line Pipe
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 30 November 2000, the EC requested
consultations with the US on US safeguard legislation and its application in two cases
concerning the definitive safeguard measures imposed by the US on imports of certain steelwire rod ("wire rod") and certain circular welded carbon quality line pipe ("line pipe").  In
particular, the EC considered as follows:
• Sections 201 and 202 of the Trade Act of 1974 contain provisions relating to the
determination of a causal link between increased imports and injury or threat thereof
which prevented the US from respecting Articles 4 and 5 of the Safeguards Agreement.
• Section 311 of the NAFTA Implementation Ac t contains provisions concerning imports
originating in NAFTA countries which do not respect the requirement of parallelismbetween the imported products subject to the investigation and the imported products
subject to the safeguard measure, contrary to Articles 2, 4 and 5 of the Safeguards
Agreement.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 45
• These provisions are in breach of the Most-Favoured-Nation principle under Article I of
the GATT 1994.
According to the EC, these violations are confirmed by the application of the aforesaid US
provisions in two specific cases where the US imposed definitive safeguard measures, (1) in
the form of a tariff rate quota on imports of wire rod effective as of 1 March 2000; and (2) inthe form of an increase in duty on imports of line pipe effective as of 1 March 2000. In the
EC's view, in both the above mentioned cases the US measures are in breach of the US
obligations under the provisions of GATT 1994 and of the Safeguards Agreement, in
particular, but not necessarily exclusively, of: Article 2 Safeguards Agreement; Articles 3.1
and 3.2 Safeguards Agreement; Articles 4.1 and 4.2 Safeguards Agreement; Article 5.1
Safeguards Agreement; Article 8.1 Safeguards Agreement; Articles 12.2, 12.3 and 12.11
Safeguards Agreement; Article I:1 of GATT 1994; Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994.
Further to the request of the EC, the DSB established a panel at its meeting of 10 September
2001.  Argentina, Canada, Japan, Korea and Mexico reserved their third-party rights.  The
Panel has not yet been composed.
10. WT/DS217 – United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000
Joint complaint by Australia, Brazil, Chile, European Communities, India, Indonesia, Japan,
Korea and Thailand.  On 21 December 2000, all mentioned Members ("complainants")
requested consultations with the US concerning the amendment to the Tariff Act of 1930
signed on 28 October 2000 with the title of "Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of2000" (the "Act") usually referred to as "the Byrd Amendment".  According to the
complainants:
• the Act mandates the US customs authorities to distribute on an annual basis the duties
assessed pursuant to a countervailing duty order, an anti-dumping order or a finding under
the Antidumping Act of 1921 to the petitioners or interested parties who supported thepetition, for their expenditure incurred with respect to "manufacturing facilities,
equipment, acquisition of technology, acquisition of raw material or other inputs".  In the
view of the complainants, the Act leaves no discretion to the competent authorities, and,
therefore, constitutes mandatory legislatio n. According to the complainants, these
"offsets" constitute a specific action against dumping and subsidisation which is notcontemplated in the GATT, the AD Agreement or the SCM Agreement.
• Allegedly, the "offsets" would provide a stro ng incentive to the domestic producers to file
or support petitions for anti-dumping or anti-subsidy measures, thereby distorting the
application of the standing requirements provided for in the AD Agreement and the SCM
Agreement.
• The Act would make it more difficult for exporters subject to an antidumping or
countervailing duty order to secure an undertak ing with the competent authorities, since
the affected domestic producers will have a vested interest in opposing such undertakings
in favour of the collection of anti-dumping or countervailing duties.
• In the view of the complainants, this is not a reasonable and impartial administration of
the US laws and regulations implementing the provisions of the ADA and the ASCMregarding standing determinations and undertakings.
For the above reasons, the complainants consider ed that the Act is inconsistent with the
obligations of the United States under several provisions of the GATT, the AD Agreement,the SCM Agreement, and the WTO Agreement.  By  being inconsistent with those provisions,
the Act appears to nullify or impair the benefits accruing to the requesting Members under the
cited agreements in the manner described in Article XXIII.1 (a) of the GATT.  Furthermore,WT/DS/OV/7
Page 46
the complainants stated that, whether or not in conflict with the cited Agreements, the Act
may nullify or impair benefits accrued to them under those agreements and/or impede the
attainment of objectives of those agreements in the manner described in Article XXIII.1 (b) of
the GATT. In addition, the complainants considered that the "offsets" paid under the Act
constitute specific subsidies within the meaning of Article 1 of the SCM Agreement, whichmay cause "adverse effects" to their interests, in the sense of Article 5 of the SCM Agreement
On 12 July 2001, the complainants requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on
24 July 2001, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to
establish a panel by the complainants, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 23
August 2001.  Argentina; Canada; Costa Rica; Hong Kong, China; Israel; Norway and
Mexico reserved their third-party rights.
Further to Canada and Mexico's request to establish a panel on a similar matter, the DSB, at
its meeting of 10 September 2001, established a single panel pursuant to paragraphs 1 and 2
of Article 9 of the DSU.  This panel would therefore examine not only Canada and Mexico's
claims (see WT/DS234 below) but also those previously brought by Australia, Brazil, Chile,European Communities, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea and Thailand.  On 15 October 2001,
all 11 complainants requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the Panel.
On 25 October 2001, the Panel was composed. On 17 April 2002, the Chairman of the Panel
informed the DSB that the Panel would not be able to complete its work in six months since
the parties were given the maximum amount of time for preparing submissions and oralstatements.  The Panel expected to complete its work by July 2002.
11. WT/DS219 – European Communities – Anti-dumping duties on malleable cast iron tube
or pipe fittings from Brazil
Complaint by Brazil.  On 21 December 2000, Brazil requested consultations with the EC as
regards definitive anti-dumping duties imposed by Council Regulation (EC) n° 1784/2000
concerning imports of malleable cast iron tube or pipe fittings originating, inter alia , in
Brazil.
• Brazil considered that the EC's establishment of the facts was not proper and that its
evaluation of these facts was not unbiased and objective, both at the provisional and
definitive stage, particularly in relation to the initiation and conduct of the investigation
(including the evaluation, findings and determination of dumping, injury and causal link
between them).
• Brazil also challenged the evaluation and findings made in relation to the "community
interest".
• In sum, Brazil considered that the EC had infringed Article VI of GATT 1994 and
Articles 1, 2, 3, 4 ,5 , 6, 7, 9, 11, 12 and 15 of the Anti-dumping Agreement.
Further to Brazil's request, the DSB established a panel at its meeting of 24 July 2001.  Chile,
Japan, Mexico and the US reserved their third-party rights.  The Panel was composed on
5 September 2001.
On 15 January 2002, both parties requested the Panel to suspend its work until 1 March 2002
with a view to reaching a mutually agreed solution.  The Panel agreed to the request.  On 28February 2002, both parties requested the Panel to further suspend its work until 5 April 2002
with a view to reaching a mutually agreed solution.  The Panel agreed to this request.  On 22
April 2002, the Panel resumed its work, in accordance with Brazil's request.  On 3 May 2002,
the Chairman of the Panel notified the DSB that it would not be possible to complete its workWT/DS/OV/7
Page 47
in six months in light of, inter alia , scheduling conflicts.  The Panel expects to complete its
work in December 2002.
12. WT/DS221 – United States – Section 129(c)(1) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act
Complaint by Canada.  On 17 January 2001, Canada requested consultations with the US
concerning Section 129(c)(1) of the Urugua y Round Agreements Act (the "URAA") and the
Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the URAA.  In Canada's view, in a
situation in which the DSB has ruled that the US has, in an anti-dumping or countervailing
duty proceeding, acted inconsistently with US  obligations under the AD or SCM Agreements,
the US law prohibits the US from complying fully with the DSB ruling. Under US law,
determinations whether to levy anti-dumping or countervailing duties are made after the
imports occur.  With regard to imports that oc curred prior to a date on which the US directs
compliance with the DSB ruling, the measures require US authorities to disregard the DSB
ruling in making such determinations, even  where the determination whether to levy anti-
dumping or countervailing duties is made after the date fixed by the DSB for compliance. In
such circumstances, determinations by the US to levy anti-dumping or countervailing duties
would be inconsistent with its obligations under the AD or SCM Agreements.
Canada considered that these measures are inconsistent with US obligations under Article
21.3 of the DSU, in the context of Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.7 and 21.1 of the DSU; Article VI of the
GATT 1994; Articles 10 and note 36, 19.2, 19.4 and note 51, 21.1, 32.1, 32.2, 32.3, and 32.5
of the SCM Agreement; Articles 1, 9.3, 11.1, 18.1-4 and note 12 of the AD Agreement; and
Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.
Further to Canada's request, the DSB established a panel at its meeting of 23 August 2001.
Chile, EC, India and Japan reserved their third-party rights.  On 30 October 2001, the Panel
was composed.  On 30 April 2002, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that thePanel would not be able to complete its work in six months due to the complexity of the
matter and that the Panel expected to issue its final report to the parties by the end of June
2002.
13. WT/DS234 – United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000
Complaint by Canada and Mexico.  On 21 May 2001, Canada and Mexico requested
consultations with the US concerning the amendment to the Tariff Act of 1930  signed into law
by the President on October 28, 2000, entitled the " Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset
Act of 2000 " (the Act), usually referred to as the Byrd Amendment.
A summary of Canada and Mexico's allegations is as follows:
• Canada and Mexico claimed that the express purpose of the Act is to remedy the
"continued dumping or subsidization of import products after the issuance of antidumping
orders or findings or countervailing duty orders". With that objective, the Act requires the
US customs authorities to distribute, on an annual basis, the duties assessed pursuant to a
countervailing duty order, an anti-dumping order or a finding under the Antidumping Act
of 1921  to the "affected domestic producers" for their "qualifying expenses". The
"affected domestic producers" are the petitioners or interested parties who supported the
petition. "Qualifying expenses" include the expenditure incurred with respect to
"manufacturing facilities, equipment, acquisition of technology, acquisition of raw
material or other inputs."
• According to Canada and Mexico, the "offsets" constitute a specific action against
dumping and subsidization which is not c ontemplated in the GATT, the Anti-Dumping
Agreement ("ADA") or the SCM Agreement.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 48
• Moreover, the "offsets" provide a strong incentive to the domestic producers to file or
support petitions for anti-dumping or countervailing  measures, thereby distorting the
application of the standing requirements provided for in the ADA and SCM Agreement.
• In addition, the Act makes it more difficult for exporters subject to an anti-dumping or
countervailing duty order to secure an undertak ing with the competent authorities, since
the affected domestic producers will have a vested interest in opposing such undertakings
in favour of the collection of anti-dumping or countervailing duties. In Canada andMexico’s view, this would not lead to an impartial and reasonable administration of the
US laws, regulations and decisions or rulings implementing the provisions of the ADA
and the SCM Agreement regarding standing determinations and undertakings.
• Furthermore, Canada and Mexico considered that the "offsets" paid under the Act
constitute specific subsidies within the meaning of Article 1 of the SCM Agreement,
which may cause "adverse effects" to their interests, in the sense of Article 5 of the SCMAgreement in the form of nullification and impairment of benefits accruing directly or
indirectly to Canada and Mexico and serious prejudice in the sense of Article 6 of the
SCM Agreement.
• For these reasons, Canada and Mexico alleged that the Act appears to be inconsistent with
the obligations of the United States under the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the
WTO, as well as the GATT, the ADA and the SCM Agreement. In particular, the Act is
alleged to be inconsistent with the obligations of the United States under: (i) Article 18.1
of the ADA in conjunction with Article VI:2 of the GATT and Article 1 of the ADA; (ii)Article 32.1 of the SCM Agreement, in conjunction with Article VI:3 of the GATT and
10 of the SCM Agreement; (iii) Article X(3)(a) of the GATT; (iv) Article 5.4 of the ADA
and Article 11.4 of the SCM Agreement; (v) Article 8 of the ADA and Article 18 of the
SCM Agreement; (vi) Article 5 of the SCM Agreement; and (vii) Article XVI:4 of the
Marrakesh Agreement establishing the WTO, Article 18.4 of the ADA and Article 32.5 ofthe SCM Agreement.
• According to Canada and Mexico, as a result of being inconsistent with the above
provisions, the Act appears to nullify or impair the benefits accruing to Canada and
Mexico under the cited Agreements in the manner described in Article XXIII:1 (a) of
GATT.
• In addition, Canada and Mexico considered that the Act, whether or not it conflicts with
the provisions of the cited Agreements, may nullify or impair benefits accruing to Canada
and Mexico under the above-mentioned Agreements in the manner described in
Article XXIII:1(b) of GATT.
At its meeting of 10 September 2001, the DSB established a single panel pursuant to
paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 9 of the DSU to  examine not only Canada and Mexico's claims
but also those previously brought by Australia, Brazil, Chile, European Communities, India,
Indonesia, Japan, Korea and Thailand (see WT/DS217 above).  In this regard, the countries
who had reserved third-party rights to participate in the Panel established on 23 August 2001
were considered to be third-parties in the single Panel established at the 10 September
meeting.  Australia, Brazil, the EC, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea and Thailand also reservedtheir third-party rights to this Panel.  On 15 October 2001, the 11 complainants requested the
Director-General to determine the composition of the Panel.  On 25 October 2001, the Panel
was composed.  On 17 April 2002, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that the
Panel would not be able to complete its work in six months since the parties were given the
maximum amount of time for preparing submissions and oral statements.  The Panel expected
to complete its work by July 2002.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 49
14. WT/DS236 - United States – Preliminary De terminations with respect to Certain
Softwood Lumber from Canada
Complaint by Canada.  On 21 August 2001, Ca nada requested consultations with the US
concerning the preliminary countervailing duty determination and the preliminary critical
circumstances determination made by the US Department of Commerce on 9 August 2001,
with respect to certain softwood lumber from Canada.  This request also concerned US
measures on company-specific expedited reviews and administrative reviews.  In particular:
• As far as the preliminary countervailing duty determination is concerned, Canada
considered this determination to be inconsistent with US obligations under Articles 1, 2,
10, 14, 17.1, 17.5, 19.4 and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement and Article VI(3) of GATT
1994.
• With respect to the preliminary critical circumstances determination, Canada considered
this determination to be inconsistent with Articles 17.1, 17.3, 17.4, 19.4 and 20.6 of the
SCM Agreement.
• As regards US measures on company-specific expedited reviews and administrative
reviews, Canada considered these measures, inter alia , fail to provide for
company-specific expedited reviews or administrative reviews in countervailing duty
cases in which the investigation was conduc ted on an aggregate or country-wide basis,
and that mandate that a single country-wide duty rate calculated in an administrativereview supersedes all individual rates prev iously determined in the countervailing duty
proceeding.  Canada alleged these measures are inconsistent with US obligations under
Article VI:3 of the GATT 1994 and Articles 10, 19.3, 19.4, 21.1, 21.2 and 32.1 of the
SCM Agreement.  Canada also considered that the US had failed to ensure that its laws
and regulations are in conformity with its WTO obligations as required by Article 32.5 ofthe SCM Agreement and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.
On the grounds that the affirmative preliminary countervailing duty and critical circumstances
determinations had an immediate and significant trade impact, Canada requested urgent
consultations pursuant to Article 4.8 of the DSU.  Although accepting Canada's request toenter into consultations, the US did not accept this to be a case of urgency for the purposes of
Article 4.8 of the DSU since the measures in question involve the posting of bond for or
deposit of preliminary duties which could be refunded in whole or in part.
On 25 October 2001, Canada requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on
5 November 2001, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on
5 December 2001, the DSB established a panel.  The European Communities and India
reserved their third-party rights to participate in the panel proceedings.  On 17 December
2001, Japan requested to participate in the proceedings as a third party.
Since the parties did not reach an agreement with in the deadline as to the composition of the
panel, on 22 January 2002, Canada requested the Director-General to determine thecomposition pursuant to Article 8.7 of the DSU.  On 1 February 2002, the Director-General
composed the panel.
15. WT/DS238 - Argentina – Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Preserved
Peaches
Complaint by Chile.  On 14 September 2001, Chile requested consultations with Argentina in
respect of a definitive safeguard measure which Argentina applies on imports of peaches
preserved in water containing added sweetening matter, including syrup, preserved in any
other form or in water.  According to Chile:WT/DS/OV/7
Page 50
• Argentina's definitive safeguard measure are inconsistent include Articles 2, 4, 5 and 12
of the Agreement on Safeguards, and Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994.
• The definitive safeguard measure does not comply with the relevant WTO rules and
seriously affects the competitiveness of Chilean peaches in the Argentinean market.  Inparticular, Chile considered that Argentina failed to respect the requirements of
Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994 as regards the existence of "unforeseen developments" andof an increase of imports.
• Chile was of the opinion that the conclusions derived from the investigation carried out
by the Government of Argentina do not support a finding of injury to the domestic
industry or threat of injury.
• Chile also claimed that the investigating auth ority did not take into account the existence
of other factors when attributing the injury allegedly suffered by the domestic industry
exclusively to an alleged increase of imports.
• In addition, Chile considered that the level of the definitive safeguard measure is so high
that it is equivalent to an import prohibition.
On 6 December 2001, Chile requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on
18 December 2001, the DSB deferred the establishment of the panel.  At the DSB meeting on
18 January 2002, a panel was established.  Immediately after the establishment, Chile stated
that it would not, for the moment, proceed with the appointment of panelists, as it was still
hoping to reach a mutually satisfactory solution with Argentina.  The European Communities,Paraguay and the United States reserved their th ird-party rights to participate in the Panel's
proceedings.  On 13 March 2002, Chile informed the Chairman of the DSB that it would like
the composition of the panel to go ahead.  The panel was composed on 16 April 2002.
16. WT/DS241 - Argentina – Definitive Anti-D umping Duties on Poultry from Brazil
Complaint by Brazil.  On 7 November 2001, Brazil requested consultations with Argentina in
respect of the definitive anti-dumping duties imposed by Argentina on imports of poultry
from Brazil, classified under Mercosul tariff line 0207.11.00 and 0207.12.00.  These
measures were adopted by the Ministry of Economy of Argentina in Resolution 574 from 21
July 2000, published in the Argentinean Official Gazette on 24 July 2000.  Brazil consideredthat the definitive anti-dumping duties imposed, as well as the investigation conducted by the
Argentinean Authorities might have been flawed and based on erroneous or deficient
procedures, inconsistent with Argentina’s obl igations under the Anti-Dumping Agreement
and the GATT 1994, and under the Customs Valuation Agreement.  In particular, Brazil
claimed:
• the initiation of the investigation, with regard to the evidence of dumping and injury;
• the failure in providing the text of the written application for the investigation to the
exporters and the Brazilian Government as soon as the investigation had initiated;
• the conduct of the investigation, including the evaluation, finding and determinations of
dumping, injury and the causal link between them, and disregard of most of theinformation presented by the Brazilian exporters without proper justification;
• the deficient public notice of final determination of dumping, including the failure to
disclose the essential facts under consideration, which formed the basis of the decision to
impose the anti-dumping measures;
• the imposition of the anti-dumping duties; and
• customs value determined on the basis of minimum customs value.
According to Brazil, Argentina would have in fringed the following provisions of the Anti-
dumping Agreement: Article 1 (Principles) ; Article 2 (Determination of Dumping) , includingWT/DS/OV/7
Page 51
paragraphs 2.1, 2.3, 2.4 and 2.6 thereof; Article 3 ( Determination of Injury) , including
paragraphs 3.1, 3.4, 3.5 thereof; Article 4 (Definition of Domestic Industry) , including
paragraph 4.1 thereof; Article 5 (Initiation and Subsequent Investigation) , including
paragraphs 5.2, 5.3 (in conjunction with Articles 2 and 3), 5.7 and 5.8 thereof; Article 6
(Evidence) , including subparagraph 6.1.3, and paragraph 6.8 in conjunction with paragraphs
1, 3, 5, 6 and 7 of Annex II; Article 9 (Imposition and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duties) ,
including 9.1 and 9.2 thereof; Article 12 (Public Notice and Explanation of Determinations),
including paragraphs 12.1 and 12.2 thereof; and Articles 1 and 7 of the Agreement on
Customs Valuation.
On 19 November 2001, the EC requested to be joined in the consultations as third party.
 
On 25 February 2002, Brazil requested the establishment of a panel.  In particular, Brazil
claimed that:
•  the application submitted by Central de Empresas Procesadoras Avicolas (CEPA) and the
subsequent initiation of the investigation by the Argentine authorities had not compled
with the requirements set forth in Article 5 of the Anti-dumping Agreement;
• once the investigation had been initiated, the Argentine authorities had not complied with
the public notice and evidentiary requirements in Articles 12, 6 and Annex II of the Anti-Dumping Agreement;
• many actions taken by the Argentine authorities throughout the investigation, as well as
the final affirmative determination on dumping, injury and causal relationship had notcomplied with the requirements in Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement;
and
• the Argentine authorities had imposed and collected anti-dumping duties, as a result of
the investigation, that had not complied with  the requirements in Article 9 of the Anti-
Dumping agreement.
At its meeting on 8 March 2002, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  At the DSB
meeting on 17 April 2002, the panel was established.  Argentina noted that notwithstandingthe establishment of the panel at the present meeting, it was still hopeful that a mutually
satisfactory solution to the dispute could be found.  Canada, Chile, the EC, Guatemala,
Paraguay and the US reserved their third-party rights.
17. WT/DS244 - United States – Sunset Review of Anti-dumping Duties on Corrosion-
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan
Complaint by Japan.  On 30 January 2002, Japan requested consultations with the United
States in respect of the final determinations of both the United States Department of
Commerce (DOC) and the United States International Trade Commission in the full sunset
review of the anti-dumping duties imposed on imports of corrosion-resistant carbon steel flatproducts from Japan.  These determinations were issued on 2 August 2000 and 21 November
2000, respectively.
• Japan claimed that these determinations were erroneous and based on deficient rulings,
procedures and provisions pertaining to the United States Tariff Act of 1930, as amended("the Act") and related regulations.
• Japan further claimed that the procedures and provisions of the Act and related
regulations as well as the above determinations were inconsistent with, inter alia , Articles
VI and X of GATT 1994; Articles 2, 3, 5, 6 (including Annex II), 11, 12, and 18.4 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement; and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 52
On 13 February 2002, the EC requested to be joined in the consultations as third party.  On 14
February 2002, India requested to be joined in the consultations as third party.
On 4 April 2002, Japan requested the establishment of a panel.  In particular, Japan claimed
that:
• The DOC had automatically initiated the suns et review without presenting any evidence
of the likelihood of continued or recurrent dumping or injury.  Thus, Section 751(c)(1)
and (2) of the Act and the DOC regulation 19 C.F.R. § 351.218(a) and (c)(1), on the face
and as applied in this case, were inconsistent with Articles 5.6, 11.1, 11.3, 12.1, and 12.3
of the AD Agreement and Article X:3(a) of the GATT 1994.
• The US laws, regulations, procedures, practices and determinations regarding the
"likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping" were inconsistent, on the face, as a
general practice and as applied in this case, with the WTO obligations as follows:i. The DOC regulation 19 C.F.R. §351.222(I)(1)(ii) set forth the "not likely"
standard to revoke an antidumping duty or der.  Sections II.A.3 and II.A.4 of the
DOC's Sunset Policy Bulletin , which provided irrefutable conditions where the
DOC might find no likelihood of continued or recurrent dumping.  The DOC
regulation 19 C.F.R. §351.222(I)(1)(ii) and Sections II.A.3 and II.A.4 of theDOC's Sunset Policy Bulletin , on the face, as a general practice and as applied in
this case, were inconsistent with the requirements of Article 11.3 of the AD
Agreement and Article X:3 of the GATT 1994.
ii. Both the Statement of Administrative Action at 890 and the Sunset Policy Bulletin
at Section II.A.3 set an irrefutable presumption that dumping was likely tocontinue where the import volume had declined or where dumping margins
remain after issuance of the order.  The "good cause" requirement in the DOC
regulation 19 C.F.R. § 351.218(d) did not mitigate this defect because it narrowed
the administering authorities' ability to  examine other evidences.  As such, no
attempt was made to "determine" whether dumping was likely to continue orrecur.  The US' procedures and practice were inconsistent with the obligations of
Article 11.3 of the AD Agreement and Article X:3 of the GATT 1994.
• The dumping margins that the DOC had used in its sunset reviews,  including its
interpretation of the proper de minimis  standard in conducting its likelihood analysis,
were inconsistent with the WTO obligations as follows:
i. The dumping margins used by the DOC in the 1993 original investigation to
determine the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping in this
sunset review had not been calculated pursuant to Article 2 of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement.  The US policy and practice were thus inconsistent
with the US' obligations under Articles 2, 11.3 and 18.3 of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement and Article X:3 of the GATT 1994.
ii. The DOC applied a traditional practice of zeroing negative in its calculation
of dumping margins in the original investigations and the administrativereviews in this case.  The Appellate Body found this practice of zeroing to be
inconsistent with Article 2.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement in the EC –
Bed-Linen  case (WT/DS141).  The US' general practice and its application of
the practice in this case were therefore inconsistent with Article 2.4
(particularly 2.4.2) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article X:3 of theGATT 1994.
iii. Notwithstanding the 2.0% de minimis standard set forth in Article 5.8 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement, the DOC regulation 19 C.F.R. § 351.106(c)(1)
and Section II.A.5 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin  provided for a 0.5% de
minimis  standard for sunset reviews.  In this case, had the DOC properly
applied the 2.0% de minimis  standard provided in Article 5.8 of the Anti-WT/DS/OV/7
Page 53
Dumping Agreement, the Japanese producers might have been exempt from
the continuation of antidumping duties.  The US de minimis  standard was
inconsistent with the United States' obligations under Articles 5.8 and 11.3 of
the AD Agreement and Article X:3 of the GATT 1994.
• Both the Statement of Administrative Action  and Sunset Policy Bulletin  provided that
the DOC "will make its determination of likelihood on an order-wide basis." The US
policy and practice are inconsistent with Articles 6.10 (which provides the obligation
to determine dumping margins on an individual company basis) and 11.3 of the AD
Agreement and Article X:3 of the GATT 1994.
• The DOC required Japanese respondents to  file all relevant evidence in their
"substantive response" within 30 days from the date of initiation.  The DOC had
refused to accept and consider any other information submitted by a Japanese
respondent in this case. The DOC's refusal to accept and consider such information in
this case was inconsistent with Articles 6.1, 6.2 and 6.6 of the AD Agreement andArticle X:3 of the GATT 1994.
• The DOC's approach to Article 11.3 determinations contradicted its approach to
Article 11.2 determinations pursuant to Sections 751(a) and (d) of the Act and the
DOC regulation 19 C.F.R. § 351.222(b) and (d).  Given that the language with regard
to determining the "likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping" was the
same in Article 11.2 as in Article 11.3, the US difference in approach wasinconsistent with Article X:3 of the GATT 1994.
At its meeting on 17 April 2002, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. .  Further to a
second request from Japan, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 22 May 2002.
Brazil, Canada, Chile, EC, India. Korea, Norway and Venezuela reserved third-party rights toparticipate in the Panel proceedings.
18. WT/DS245 – Japan – Measures Affect ing the Importation of Apples
Complaint by the United States.  On 1 March 2002, the United States requested consultations
with Japan regarding restrictions allegedly imposed by Japan on imports of apples from theUnited States.
The United States' complaint arose from the maintenance by Japan of quarantine restrictions
on apples imported into Japan, which restrictions were said to be necessary to protect against
introduction of fire blight.  Among the measures the United States complained of were theprohibition of imported apples from orchards in which any fire blight was detected, the
requirement that export orchards be inspected three times yearly for the presence of fire blight
and the disqualification of any orchard from exporting to Japan should fire blight be detected
within a 500 meter buffer zone surrounding such orchard.
The United States claimed that these measures might be inconsistent with the obligations of
Japan under:
• Article XI of GATT 1994,
• Articles 2.2, 2.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.6, 6.1, 6.2 and 7 and Annex B of the SPS Agreement, and
• Article 14 of the Agreement on Agriculture.
On 7 May 2002, the United States requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on
22 May 2002, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to
establish a panel by the United States, at its meeting on 3 June 2002, the DSB established a
panel.  Australia, Brazil, the EC and New Zealand reserved third-party rights to participate in
the Panel proceedings.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 54
19. WT/DS248 – United States – Definitive Safe guard Measures on Imports of Certain Steel
Products
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 7 March 2002, the European Communities
requested consultations with the United States regarding the definitive safeguard measuresimposed by the United States on imports of certain steel products.
Specifically, the European Communities sought consultations on the imposition by the United
States of definitive safeguard measures in the form of an increase in duties on imports of
certain flat steel, hot-rolled bar, cold-finished bar, rebar, certain welded tubular products,
carbon and alloy fittings, stainless steel bar, stainless steel rod, tin mill products and stainless
steel wire and in the form of a tariff rate quota on imports of slabs effective as of 20 March2002.
The European Communities considered that the aforementioned US measures were in breach
of the US obligations under the GATT 1994 and of the Agreement on Safeguards, and in
particular:
• Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards
(inter alia , lack of serious injury, lack of causality, non-respect of requirement of
parallelism),
• Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards
(inter alia , lack of adequately reasoned findings in the investigation report),
• Articles 4.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards
(inter alia , lack of serious injury, lack of causality, non-respect of requirement of
parallelism),
• Article 5.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards
(relief granted  goes beyond what is necessary),
• Article 5.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards
(allocation  of tariff rate quote on slab imports),
• Article 7.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards
(relief granted  beyond period of time necessary),
• Article 9.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards
(inter alia , measures applied against third countries whose import shares do not
exceed 3 per cent),
• Article I:1 of the GATT 1994
(inter alia , discrimination  against EC products),
• Article XIII of the GATT 1994
(allocation of tariff rate quota on slab imports), and
• Article XIX:1 of the GATT 1994
(inter alia , no showing of unforeseen developments).
The European Communities also reserved all its rights regarding the pursuit of the remedies
provided for under the Agreement on Safeguards and the DSU.
On 14 March 2002, Japan and Korea requested to join the consultations.  On 15 March 2002,
Switzerland and Canada also requested to join the consultations.  On 20 March 2002,Venezuela also requested to join the consultations.  On 21 March 2002, Norway and China
requested to join the consultations as well.  On 22 March 2002, Mexico also requested to join
the consultations.  On 25 March 2002, New Zealand also requested to join the consultations.
The US informed that the DSB that it had accepted the requests of Canada, China, Japan,
Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland and Venezuela to join the consultations.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 55
On 7 May 2002, the EC requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 22 May
2002, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request by the EC,
the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 3 June 2002..  Brazil, Canada, China, Chinese
Taipei, Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey andVenezuela reserved their third-party rights.  During the meeting, Malaysia indicated that it
was considering its options whether to participate as a third party in this dispute.
20. WT/DS249 – United States – Definitive Safe guard Measures on Imports of Certain Steel
Products
Complaint by Japan.  On 20 March 2002, Japan requested consultations with the US
regarding the definitive safeguard measures imposed by the US on certain steel products.Specifically, Japan sought consultations on the imposition by the United States of definitive
safeguard measures in the form of an increase in duties on imports of certain flat steel, hot-
rolled bar, cold-finished bar, rebar, certain welded tubular products, carbon and alloy fittings,
stainless steel bar, stainless steel rod, tin mill products and stainless steel wire and in the form
of a tariff rate quota on imports of slabs effective as of 20 March  2002.
Japan considered that these US safeguard measures were in violation of US obligations under
the provisions of the GATT 1994 and of the Agreement on Safeguards, in particular, but not
necessarily exclusively, of:
• Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, because, inter alia , they were based
on the deficient determinations on the like or directly competitive products, absence of
"imports in such increased quantities" and "under such conditions," lack of serious injury
or threat thereof, lack of causality, and discriminations based on the source of the
products.
• Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, because, inter alia , the US had not
allowed appropriate means in which the interested parties could present evidence and
their views, the report published by the competent authorities had not set forth adequatelythe finding and reasoned conclusions on all pertinent issues of facts and law, including
the justification for the actual measures imposed, as well as abusive recourse to
confidentiality in relation to disclosure of information.
• Articles 4.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, because, inter alia,  they were, based
on lack of serious injury or threat thereof, and lack of causality including the non-
attribution requirement.
• Articles 5.1 and 7.4 of the Agreement on Safeguards, since, inter alia,  they granted relief
beyond "the extent necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury and to facilitateadjustment" in terms of the initial degree of the measures as well as at each stage of the
progressive liberalization.
• Article 7.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, since, inter alia , they granted relief beyond
"the period of time necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury and to facilitate
adjustment".
• Article 8.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, since, inter alia , the US had failed to
endeavour, in accordance with the provisions of Article 12.3, to maintain a substantiallyequivalent level of concessions and other obligations between it and the affected
Members.
• Articles 12.1, 12.2 and 12.3 of the Agreement on Safeguards, since, inter alia , the US had
failed to provide immediate notification with all pertinent information and deprived
adequate opportunity for prior consultation with WTO Members having a substantialinterest as exporters of the product concerned.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 56
• Article I:1 of the GATT 1994, since, inter alia , they discriminated between products
originating in Japan and products originating in other WTO Members.
• Article II of the GATT 1994, since, inter alia , they consisted of withdrawal or
modification of US concessions without justification under Article XIX of the GATT
1994 nor the Agreement on Safeguards nor any other provisions of the WTO Agreement.
• Article X:3 of the GATT 1994, since they we re not based on uniform, impartial and
reasonable administration of the relevant US laws and regulations.
• Article XIII of the GATT 1994, as regards the allocation of the tariff rate quota on
imports of slabs.
• Articles XIX:1 of the GATT 1994, because, inter alia , the US had failed to show, prior to
the application of the measures, that the increases in imports and the conditions ofimportation of the products covered by the above-mentioned measures had been the result
of "unforeseen development" and of the effect of the US obligations under the GATT
1994.
• Articles XIX:2 of the GATT 1994, because, inter alia , the US had failed to give notice in
writing to WTO Members as far in advance as might be practical and to afford WTO
Members having a substantial interest as exporters of the product concerned an
opportunity to consult with it in respect of the proposed action.
Japan reserved its right to raise further factual claims and legal issues during the course of
consultations and in any future request for panel proceedings.  Japan also reserved all itsrights regarding the pursuit of the rights and remedies provided for under the Agreement on
Safeguards and the DSU, particularly Article 8 of the Agreement on Safeguards.  On 27
March, Norway requested to join the consultations .  On 5 April, Mexico requested to join the
consultations.  On 9 April 2002, New Zealand requested to join the consultations.  The US
informed the DSB that it had accepted the requests of Japan, Mexico, New Zealand and
Norway to join the consultations.
On 21 May 2002, Japan requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 3 June
2002, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request by Japan,
the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 14 June 2002.  Pursuant to an agreement
between the parties to the dispute and in accordance with Article 9.1 of the DSU, the DSB
agreed that the Panel established on 3 June 2002 at the request of the European Communitiesin the matter relating to US definitive safeguard measures on certain steel products would also
examine the complaints by Korea and Japan.  Delegations which had reserved their third-
party rights in the Panel established at the request of the EC, i.e. Brazil, Canada, China,
Chinese Taipei, Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey
and Venezuela, would also be considered as third parties in the single Panel.  Mexico, Turkeyand Venezuela reserved their third-party rights to participate in the proceedings after the
establishment of the single Panel.  To preserve their full rights in the proceedings of this case,
the EC, Japan and Korea also reserved their third party rights.
21. WT/DS251 – United States – Definitive Safe guard Measures on Imports of Certain Steel
Products
Complaint by Korea.  On 20 March 2002, Korea requested consultations with the US with
regard to the definitive safeguard measures imposed by the US on the imports of certain steel
products and the related laws of the US, including Sections 201 and 202 of the Trade Act of
1974 and Section 311 of the NAFTA Implementation Act.  Korea considered that the US
measures and the underlying investigation, as well as the related laws as cited above, were not
in compliance with the US obligations stipulated, in particular but not limited to, in thefollowing provisions of the Agreement on Safeguards and the GATT 1994 and the WTO
Agreement:WT/DS/OV/7
Page 57
• Article 2.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards regarding,  inter alia , deficient determination
on the like or directly competitive products, the absence of increased imports and the
requisite conditions, the lack of serious injury or threat thereof, or causation.
• Article 2.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards and Article I of GATT 1994 regarding,  inter
alia, the failure to apply the measure to all imports irrespective of their source.
• Article 2.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards in conjunction with Article 2.2 regarding
non-respect of the requirement of parallelism between the scope of the investigation of
the injury arising from imported products and the scope of the safeguard measures.
• Article 3 of the Agreement on Safeguards regarding, inter alia , the failure to afford an
opportunity for sufficient participation by interested parties and to conduct an adequate
investigation, including undue reliance on confidentiality restrictions to bar disclosure of
information, and the failure to set forth in the published report the findings and reasoned
conclusions on all pertinent issues of fact and law, including the justification for theactual measure imposed and the justification for the exclusion of Canada and Mexico.
• Article 4 of the Agreement on Safeguards regarding, inter alia , the failure to meet the
requirements of "increased imports," "under such conditions", "serious injury or threat
thereof", "causality" or the requirement of  "parallelism".
• Articles 5 and 7.4 of the Agreement on Safeguards regarding,  inter alia , the failure to
grant relief only to the "extent necessary" and to  limit that relief to serious injury caused
by increased imports at the time of the imposition of the measure as well as at the stagesof progressive liberalization.
• Article 5 of the Agreement on Safeguards and Article XIII of the GATT 1994 regarding,
inter alia , the allocation of tariff rate quotas.
• Article 7.1of the Agreement on Safeguards regarding, inter alia , the duration of the
measure beyond the necessary period of time.
• Article 8.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards regarding, inter alia , the failure to maintain a
substantially equivalent level of concessions and other obligations.
• Articles 12 of the Agreement on Safeguards regarding,  inter alia , the obligation to
provide pertinent information and "adequate opportunity" for consultations regarding the
application of a safeguard measure.
• Article 9.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards regarding, inter alia , the application of the
measure to developing countries.
• Article X:3 of the GATT 1994, since the safe guard measures are not based on uniform,
impartial and reasonable administration of the relevant U.S. laws and regulations.
• Article XIX:1 of the GATT 1994 regarding, inter alia , the requirement to demonstrate
that "unforeseen developments" led to the increase in imports.
• Article XVI:4 of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the WTO regarding, inter alia ,
the failure to ensure the conformity of its laws, regulations and administrative procedures
with the obligations as provided in the Agreement on Safeguards and the GATT 1994.
On 27 March 2002, Japan and Norway requested to join the consultations.  On 5 April,
Mexico and New Zealand requested to join the consultations.   The US informed the DSB that
it had accepted the requests of Japan, Mexico, New Zealand and Norway to join the
consultations.
On 21 May 2002, Korea requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 3 June
2002, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request by Korea,
the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 14 June 2002.  Pursuant to an agreementbetween the parties to the dispute and in accordance with Article 9.1 of the DSU, the DSB
agreed that the Panel established on 3 June 2002 at the request of the European Communitiesin the matter relating to US definitive safeguard measures on certain steel products would also
examine the complaints by Korea and Japan.  Delegations which had reserved their third-WT/DS/OV/7
Page 58
party rights in the Panel established at the request of the EC, i.e. Brazil, Canada, China,
Chinese Taipei, Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey
and Venezuela, would also be considered as third parties in the single Panel.  Mexico, Turkey
and Venezuela reserved their third-party rights to participate in the proceedings after the
establishment of the single Panel.  To preserve their full rights in the proceedings of this case,the EC, Japan and Korea also reserved their third party rights.
B. A
CTIVE COMPLIANCE PANELS
1. WT/DS103/RW/2 and WT /DS113/RW/2 – Canada - Measures Affecting the Importation
of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products
(See WT/DS103, WT/DS103/RW fo r precedents).  On 6 December 2001, the US submitted to
the DSB a second recourse for the establishment of a panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of theDSU.  The US submits that, since the Appellate Body’s 21.5 Report did not make any
findings on the consistency of Canada’s new measures, the US continues to believe that
Canada had failed to comply with the original recommendations and rulings of the DSB.  On
the same date, New Zealand made a similar request.
At its meeting on 18 December 2001, the DSB agreed, pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU, to
refer to the original Panel, for the second time, the matter raised by New Zealand and the US.
At the meeting, the EC and Australia reserved third-party rights to participate in the Panel's
proceedings.  On 28 December 2001, Argentina also reserved its third-party rights to
participate in the Panel's proceedings.
On 18 December 2001, Canada concluded with New Zealand and the US respectively,
additional understandings regarding procedures under Article 21 and 22 of the DSU.
Pursuant to both understandings, Canada and the respective party agree to request that the
arbitration requested by Canada under Article 22.6 of the DSU remain suspended pending thework of the compliance Panel.
On 17 January 2002, the Panel was composed.
2. WT/DS141/RW – European Comm unities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Cotton-
Type Bed Line from India
(See WT/DS141 for precedents)  On 8 March 2002, India sought recourse to Article 21.5 of
the DSU (request for consultations), stating that  there was disagreement as to the existence or
consistency with a covered agreement of measures taken to comply with the
recommendations and rulings.  On 4 April 2002, India requested the establishment of a
compliance panel.  In particular, India claimed that:
(a) The EC had violated Article 2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, notably Article
2.2.2(ii), by not properly calculating a "weighted average" of actual amounts for
SG&A and profits;
(b) The EC had violated Article 3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, notably but not
limited to Articles 3.1 and 3.2, by not excluding the correct portion of non-dumped
imports from the total volume of Indian imports;
(c) The EC violated Article 3 of the ADA, notably but not limited to Article 3.3, by
cumulating Indian imports with those of a country for which no dumping was found;WT/DS/OV/7
Page 59
(d) The EC violated Article 5.7 of the ADA, by not simultaneously considering the
evidence of both dumping and injury.  In fact, by cumulating countries for injury
purposes and by subsequently excluding a particular source on account of non-
dumping, the EC engaged in sequencing that was entirely improper;
(e) The EC violated Article 3 of the ADA, notably Article 3.4.  Information was not
collected nor objectively evaluated for all relevant factors.  Moreover, a proper
implementation of the Panel's findings required not only a mere recitation of injury
factors but an overall reconsideration and analysis of the information in light of the
requirements of the Anti-Dumping Agreement;
(f) The EC violated Article 3 of the ADA, notably Article 3.4.  Notwithstanding the
finding of the Panel, the EC continued to rely on companies outside the Community
industry for its determination of injury;
(g) The EC violated Article 3 of the ADA, notably Articles 3.1 and 3.4.  By not
coherently establishing and evaluating the injury factors at the level of the sample,nor at the level of the Community industry, the EC has not acted properly and
objectively;
(h) The EC violated Article 3 of the ADA, notably Article 3.5, by not demonstrating that
the dumped imports caused injury;
(i) The EC violated Article 3 of the ADA, notably Article 3.1.  In view of the above
described inconsistencies the EC has not based its determination on positive evidence
nor engaged in an objective examination;
(j) The EC violated to Article 9 of th e ADA, notably Article 9.2, by discriminating
between sources found to be dumped.  The discriminatory treatment is also contrary
to Article I of GATT 1994.  Moreover, by inviting and allowing the original
complainant to interfere with the investigat ive process, the objectivity of the analysis
has become unduly influenced which runs cont rary to the duty of the investigative
authorities to conduct an objective analysis; and
(k) The EC violated Article 15 of the ADA by failing to explore constructive remedies.
The recently initiated partial interim review shows that the suspension of the
measures was not a remedy of any type but a pretext to continue the proceeding and
circumvent the Panel's finding with respect to Article 15.
India also made two subsidiary claims, namely that:
(a) The EC acted contrary to Articles 6 and 12 of the ADA, notably Articles 6.4, 6.9, and
12.2.  By not informing the Indian government nor the Indian exporters on which
basis decisions have been taken, India's rights of defense and India's right to be dulyinformed have been breached; and
(b) By not explaining how it has explored constructive remedies under Article 15 of the
ADA the EC acted contrary to Article 12 of the ADA.
Accordingly, India requested the Panel to conclude that:
(a) The re-determination, as amended, and the subsequent actions as identified above, are
inconsistent with the above provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and GATT
1994; andWT/DS/OV/7
Page 60
(b) By failing to withdraw the measures fou nd to be inconsistent with the Anti-Dumping
Agreement and to bring its measures into conformity with its obligations under the
Anti-Dumping Agreement and GATT 1994, the EC has failed to comply with the
DSB recommendations and rulings in this dispute.
At the DSB meeting on 17 April 2002, India informed the DSB that pursuant to an
understanding reached between the EC and India,  it was requesting the withdrawal of the item
from the agenda in accordance with Rule 6 of the Rules of Procedure for WTO meetings.
The DSB agreed to India's request.
On 7 May 2002, India again requested the establishment of a compliance panel.  At the DSB
meeting on 22 May 2002, it was agreed that, if possible, the matter would be referred to the
original panel.  The United States reserved its third party rights to participate in the
proceedings.
III. REPORTS CIRCULATED
A. PANEL REPORTS
1. WT/DS207 – Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard Measures relating to Certain
Agricultural Products
Complaint by Argentina.  On 5 October 2000, Argentina requested consultations with Chile
concerning:
(1) the price band system established by Law 18.525 (as subsequently amended by Law
18.591 and Law 19.546), as well as implementing regulations and complementary
and/or amending provisions; and
(2) the provisional safeguard measures adopted on 19 November 1999 by Decree
No. 339 of the Ministry of Economy and the definitive safeguard measures imposed
on 20 January 2000 by Decree No. 9 of the Ministry of Economy on the importation
of various products, including wheat, wheat flour and edible vegetal oils.
Argentina considered that these measures raised questions concerning the obligations of Chile
under various agreements. According to Argentina, the provisions with which the measures
relating to the said price band system are inconsistent, include, but are not limited to, thefollowing: Article II of the GATT 1994, and Article 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture.
According to Argentina, the provisions with which the safeguard measures are inconsistent,
include, but are not limited to, the following: Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 12 of the Safeguards
Agreement, and Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994.
On 19 January 2001, Argentina requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on
1 February 2001, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request
to establish a panel by Argentina, the DSB established a panel at its meeting of 12 March
2001.  Australia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, the EC, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala,
Honduras, Japan, Nicaragua, Paraguay, the US and Venezuela reserved their third partyrights.  On 7 May 2001, Argentina requested the Director-General to determine the
composition of the Panel.  On 17 May 2001, the Panel was composed.
On 23 November 2001, the Panel informed the DSB that it would not be able to complete its
work in six months due to the scheduling requests of the parties.  The Panel expected tocomplete its work by the end of March 2002.  On 3 May 2002, the Panel circulated its report
to Members.  The Panel concluded that:WT/DS/OV/7
Page 61
(a) the Chilean PBS is inconsistent with Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture and
Article II:1(b) of GATT 1994;
(b) as regards the Chilean safeguard measures on wheat, wheat flour and edible vegetable
oils:(i) Chile has acted inconsistently with Article 3.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards by not making available the relevant minutes of the sessions of
the CDC through an appropriate medium so as to constitute a "published"
report;
(ii) Chile has acted inconsistently with Article XIX:1(a) of GATT 1994 because
the CDC failed to demonstrate the existence of unforeseen developments, and
Article 3.1 of the Agreement on Safegu ards because the CDC's report did not
set out findings and reasoned conclusions in this respect in its report;
(iii) Chile has acted inconsistently with Article XIX:1(a) of GATT 1994 and
Articles 2 and 4 of the Agreement on Safeguards because the CDC failed to
demonstrate the likeness or direct competitiveness of the products produced
by the domestic industry, and, consequently, failed to identify the domesticindustry;
(iv) Chile has acted inconsistently with Article XIX:1(a) of GATT 1994 and
Articles 2.1 and 4.2(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards because the CDC
failed to demonstrate the increase in imports of the products subject to the
safeguard measures required by those provisions;
(v) Chile has acted inconsistently with Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994 and
Article 4.1(a), 4.1(b) and 4.2(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards because the
CDC did not demonstrate the existence of a threat of serious injury;
(vi) Chile has acted inconsistently with Articles 2.1 and 4.2(b) of the Agreement
on Safeguards because the CDC did not demonstrate a causal link;
(vii) Chile has acted inconsistently with Article XIX:1(a) of GATT 1994 and
Article 5.1 of the Agreement on Safegu ards because the CDC did not ensure
that the measures were limited to the extent necessary to prevent or remedy
injury and facilitate adjustment;
(viii) Argentina failed to establish that Chile has acted inconsistently with the
requirement of Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards to
conduct an "appropriate investigation" because Argentina allegedly did nothave a full opportunity to participate in the investigation and did not have
access to any public summary of the confidential information on which the
Chilean authorities may have based their determination.
2. WT/DS231 – European Communities – Trade Description of Sardines
Complaint by Peru.  On 20 March 2001, Peru requested consultations with the EC concerning
Regulation (EEC) 2136/89 which, according to Peru, prevents Peruvian exporters to continue
to use the trade description "sardines" for their products.
Peru submitted that, according to the relevant Codex Alimentarius standards (STAN 94-181
rev. 1995), the species " sardinops sagax sagax " are listed among those species which can be
traded as "sardines".  Peru, therefore, considered that the above Regulation constitutes an
unjustifiable barrier to trade, and, hence, in breach of Articles 2 and 12 of the TBT Agreement
and Article XI:1 of GATT 1994.  In addition, Peru argues that the Regulation is inconsistent
with the principle of non-discrimination, and, he nce, in breach of Articles I and III of GATT
1994.
Further to Peru's request, the DSB established a Panel at its meeting on 24 July 2001.
Canada, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela and the US reserved their third-party rights.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 62
On 31 August 2001, Peru requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the
Panel.  On 11 September 2001, the Panel was composed.  On 11 March 2002, the Panel
informed the DSB that it would not be able to issue its report within 6 months, due to the
complexity of the matter and scheduling constraints.  The Panel expects to complete its work
by end of April 2002.  On 3 May 2002, the parties to the dispute requested the Panel tosuspend its proceedings, pursuant to Article 12.12 of the DSU, until 21 May 2002.  On 6 May
2002, the Panel agreed to this request.
The Panel Report was circulated to Members on 29 May 2002.  The Panel concluded that the
EC Regulation was inconsistent with Article 2.4 of the TBT Agreement.
B. COMPLIANCE PANEL REPORTS (ARTICLE 21.5)
Nil.
C. APPELLATE BODY REPORTS
Nil.
D. APPELLATE BODY COMPLIANCE REPORTS (ARTICLE 21.5)
Nil
IV. REPORTS APPEALED
A. PANEL REPORTS
Nil.
B. COMPLIANCE PANEL REPORTS (ARTICLE 21.5)
Nil.
V. COMPLETED PANEL AND APPELLATE BODY REVIEW
A. APPELLATE BODY AND PANEL REPORTS ADOPTED
1. WT/DS2 and WT/DS4 – United States - St andards for Reformulated and Conventional
Gasoline
Complaints by Venezuela and Brazil.  Venezuela requested consultations on 24 January 1995
and Brazil on 10 April 1995.  Complainants alleged that a US gasoline regulation discriminated
against complainants' gasoline in violation of  GATT Articles I and III and Article 2 of the
Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT).
Further to Venezuela's request, the DSB established a Panel at its meeting on 10 April 1995.
On 26 April 1995 the Panel was composed.  Further to Brazil's request, the DSB established a
Panel at its meeting on 19 June 1995.  On 31 May 1995, in accordance with Article 9 of theDSU, it was agreed that a single panel would consider the complaints of Venezuela and Brazil.
The report of the panel was circulated to Members on 29 January 1996.  The report of the panel
found the regulation to be inconsistent with GATT Article III:4 and not to benefit from an
Article XX exception.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 63
The US appealed on 21 February 1996.  On 22 Apr il, the Appellate Body  issued its report,
modifying the panel report on the interpretati on of GATT Article XX(g) , but concluding that
Article XX(g) was not applicable in this case.  The Appellate Report, together with the panel
report as modified by the Appellate Re port, was adopted by the DSB on 20 May 1996.
2. WT/DS8, WT/DS10 and WT/DS11 – Japa n - Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages
Complaints by the European Communities, Canada and the United States.  The EC requested
consultations on 21 June 1995, and Canada and the US on 7 July 1995.  The complainants
claimed that spirits exported to Japan were discriminated against under the Japanese liquor tax
system which, in their view, levies a substantially lower tax on "shochu" than on whisky,
cognac and white spirits.
A joint panel was established at the DSB meeting on 27 September 1995.  On 30 October 1995,
the Panel was composed.  The report of the panel, which found the Japanese tax system to be
inconsistent with GATT Article III:2, wa s circulated to Members on 11 July 1996.
On 8 August 1996 Japan filed an appeal. The re port of the Appellate Body was circulated to
Members on 4 October 1996. The Appellate Body's Report affirmed the Panel's conclusion that
the Japanese Liquor Tax Law is inconsistent with GATT Article III:2, but pointed out several
areas where the Panel had erred in its legal reas oning. The Appellate Report, together with the
panel report as modified by the Appellate Report, was adopted on 1 November 1996.
3. WT/DS18 – Australia - Measures Affe cting the Importation of Salmon
Complaint by Canada.  On 5 October 1995, Canada  requested consultations with Australia in
respect of Australia's prohibition of imports  of salmon from Canada based on a quarantine
regulation.  Canada alleged that the prohibition is inconsistent with GATT Articles XI and X III,
and also inconsistent with the SPS Agreement.
On 7 march 1997, Canada requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 20 March
1997, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish a
panel by Canada, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 10 April 1997.  The EC, India,
Norway and the US reserved their third-party rights.  On 28 May 1997, the Panel was
composed.  The report of the Panel was circulated to Members on 12 June 1998.  The Panel
found that Australia's measures complained ag ainst were inconsistent with Articles 2.2, 2.3, 5.1,
5.5, and 5.6 of the SPS Agreement, and also nullifi ed or impaired benefits accruing to Canada
under the SPS Agreement.
On 22 July 1998, Australia notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the Panel. The re port of the Appellate Body was circulated to
Members on 20 October 1998.  The Appellate Body reversed the Panel's reasoning with respect
to Articles 5.1 and 2.2 of the SPS Agreement but nevertheless found that:
• Australia had acted inconsistently with Articles 5.1 and 2.2 of the SPS Agreement;
• broadened the Panel's finding that Australia had acted inconsistently with Articles 5.5 and
2.3 of the SPS Agreement;
• reversed the Panel's finding that Australia ha d acted inconsistently with Article 5.6 of the
SPS Agreement but was unable to come to a conclusion whether or not Australia's measure
was consistent with Article 5.6 due to insufficient factual findings by the Panel.
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report a nd the Panel Report, as modified by the
Appellate Body Report, on 6 November 1998.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 64
4. WT/DS22 – Brazil - Measures Affecting Desiccated Coconut
Complaint by the Philippines.  On 27 November 1995, the Philippines requested consultations
with Brazil in respect of a countervailing duty imposed by Brazil on the Philippine's exports of
desiccated coconut.  The Philippines claimed th at this duty was inconsistent with WTO and
GATT rules.
On 5 February 1996, the Philippines requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on
21 February 1996, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request
to establish a panel by the Philippines, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 5 March
1996.  Canada, the EC, Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri La nka and the US reserved their third-party
rights.  On 16 April 1996, the Panel was composed.  The report was circulated to Members on17 October 1996.  The report of the Panel concluded that the provisions of the agreements relied
on by the claimant were inapplicable to the dispute.
On 16 December 1996, the Philippines notified its decision to appeal against certain issues of
law and legal interpretations developed by the panel. The report of the Appellate Body wascirculated to Members on 21 February 1997.  The Appellate Body upheld the findings and legal
interpretations of the Panel.
The Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as  modified by the Appellate Body report, were
adopted by the DSB on 20 March 1997.
5. WT/DS24 – United States - Restrictions on Imports of Cotton and Man-Made Fibre
Underwear
Complaint by Costa Rica.  On 22 December 1995, Costa Rica requested consultations with the
United States concerning US restrictions on textile imports from Costa Rica.  Costa Rica
alleged that these restrictions were in violation of the ATC agreement.
Further to Costa Rica's request, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 5 March 1996.
India reserved its third-party rights.  On 4 April 1996, the Panel was composed.  The report of
the panel was circulated to members on 8 November 1996.  The Panel found that the US
restraints were not valid.
On 11 November 1996, Costa Rica notified its deci sion to appeal against one aspect of the
Panel report. The report of the Appellate Body  was circulated to Members on 10 February 1997.
The Appellate Body upheld the appeal by Cost a Rica on that particular point. The Appellate
Body report and the Panel report as modified by the Appellate Body report, were adopted by the
DSB on 25 February 1997.
6. WT/DS26 – European Communities - Measu res Affecting Meat and Meat Products
(Hormones)
Complaint by the United States.  On 26 January 1996, the United States requested consultations
with the European Communities claiming that measures taken by the EC under the CouncilDirective Prohibiting the Use in Livestock Farm ing of Certain Substances Having a Hormonal
Action restrict or prohibit imports of meat a nd meat products from the United States, and are
apparently inconsistent with GATT Articles III or XI, SPS Agreement Articles 2, 3 and 5, TBT
Agreement Article 2 and the Agreement on Agriculture Article 4.
On 25 April 1996, the US requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meetings on 8 May
1996, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish aWT/DS/OV/7
Page 65
panel by the US, a panel was established at the DSB meeting on 20 May 1996.  On 2 July 1996,
the Panel was composed.  The report of the Panel was circulated to Members on 18 August
1997.  The Panel found that the EC ban on imports of meat and meat products from cattle
treated with any of six specific hormones for gr owth promotion purposes was inconsistent with
Articles 3.1, 5.1 and 5.5 of the SPS Agreement.
On 24 September 1997, the EC notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the Panel.  The Appe llate Body examined this appeal with that of
WT/DS48.  The report of the A ppellate Body was circulated to Members on 16 January 1998.
The Appellate Body upheld the Panel's finding that the EC import prohibition was inconsistent
with Articles 3.3 and 5.1 of the SPS Agreement, but reversed the Panel's finding that the EC
import prohibition was inconsistent with Articles 3.1 and 5.5 of the SPS Agreement.  On thegeneral and procedural issues, the Appellate B ody upheld most of the findings and conclusions
of the Panel, except with respect to the burden of proof in proceedings under the SPS
Agreement.
The Appellate Body report and the Panel report,  as modified by the Appellate Body, were
adopted by the DSB on 13 February 1998.
7. WT/DS27 – European Communities - Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution
of Bananas
Complaints by Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras , Mexico and the United States.  The
complainants in this case other than Ecuador had requested consultations with the EC on the
same issue on 28 September 1995 (WT/DS16).  After Ecuador's accession to the WTO, the
current complainants again requested consul tations with the EC on 5 February 1996.  The
complainants alleged that the EC's regime for importation, sale and distribution of bananas is
inconsistent with GATT Articles I, II, III, X, XI and XIII as well as provisions of the ImportLicensing Agreement, the Agreement on Agri culture, the TRIMs Agreement and the GATS.
On 11 April 1996, the five complainants requested th e establishment of a panel.  At its meeting
on 24 April 1996, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request by
the five complainants, a panel was established at the DSB meeting on 8 May 1996.  On 29 May
1996, the five complainants requested the Director -General to determine the composition of the
Panel.  On 7 June 1996, the Panel was composed.  The report of the Panel was circulated toMembers on 22 May 1997.  The Panel found that the EC's banana import regime, and the
licensing procedures for the importation of banana s in this regime, are inconsistent with the
GATT.  The Panel further found that the Lomé waiver waives the inconsistency with GATT
Article XIII, but not inconsistencies arising from the licensing system.
On 11 June 1997, the European Communities notified its intention to appeal certain issues of
law and legal interpretations developed by the Panel.  The report of the Appellate Body was
circulated to Members on 9 September 1997.  The Appellate Body mostly upheld the Panel's
findings, but reversed the Panel's findings that  the inconsistency with GATT Article XIII is
waived by the Lomé waiver, and that certain aspects of the licensing regime violated Article Xof GATT and the Import Licensing Agreement.
At its meeting on 25 September 1997, the Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as
modified by the Appellate Body, were adopted by the DSB.
8. WT/DS31 – Canada - Certain Measures Concerning Periodicals
Complaint by the United States. On 11 March 1996, the United States requested consultations
with Canada concerning certain measures prohi biting or restricting the importation into CanadaWT/DS/OV/7
Page 66
of certain periodicals.  The US claimed that  the measures are in contravention of GATT
Article XI.  The US further alleged that the tax treatment of so-called "split-run" periodicals and
the application of favourable postage rates to cer tain Canadian periodicals are inconsistent with
GATT Article III.
On 24 May 1996, the US requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 6 June 1996,
the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish a panel
by the US, the DSB established a panel on 19 June 1996.  On 25 July 1996, the Panel was
composed.  The report of the Panel  was circulated to Members on 14 March 1997.  The Panel
found the measures applied by Canada to be in violation of GATT rules.
On 29 April 1997, Canada notified its intention to  appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the Panel. The re port of the Appellate Body was circulated to
Members on 30 June 1997.  The Appellate Body uphe ld the Panel's findings and conclusions on
the applicability of GATT 1994 to Part V.1 of Canada's Excise Tax Act, but reversed the Panel's
finding that Part V.1 of the Excise Act is inconsistent with the first sentence of Article III:2 of
GATT 1994.  The Appellate Body further concl uded that Part V.1 of the Excise Act is
inconsistent with the second sentence of Artic le III:2 of GATT 1994.  The Appellate Body also
reversed the Panel's conclusion that Canada's "funded" postal rate scheme is justified by Article
III:8(b) of GATT 1994.
At its meeting on 30 July 1997, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel
report, as modified by the Appellate Body.
9. WT/DS33 – United States - Measure A ffecting Imports of Woven Wool Shirts and
Blouses
Complaint by India.  On 30 December 1994, I ndia requested consultations with the United
States concerning the transitional safeguard measure imposed by the United States.  India
claimed that the safeguard measure is incons istent with Articles 2, 6 and 8 of the ATC.
On 14 March 1996, India requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 27 March
1996, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish
a panel by India, the DSB meeting established a panel at its meeting on 17 April 1996.  Canada,
the EC, Norway, Pakistan and Turkey reserved their third party rights.  On 24 June 1996, the
Panel was composed.  The report of the Panel was circulated to Members on 6 January 1997.
The Panel found that the safeguard measure im posed by the United States violated the
provisions of the ATC.
On 24 February 1997, India notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the Panel. The re port of the Appellate Body was circulated to
Members on 25 April 1997.  The Appellate Body uphe ld the Panel's decisions on those issues of
law and legal interpretations that were appealed against.
The Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as upheld by the Appellate Body, were adopted
by the DSB on 23 May 1997.
10. WT/DS34 – Turkey - Restrictions on Im ports of Textile and Clothing Products
Complaint by India.  On 21 March 1996, India requested consultations with Turkey
concerning Turkey's imposition of quantitative restrictions on imports of a broad range oftextile and clothing products.  India claime d that those measures are inconsistent with
Articles XI and XIII of GATT 1994, as well as ATC Article 2.  Earlier, India had requested toWT/DS/OV/7
Page 67
be joined in the consultations between Hong  Kong and Turkey on the same subject matter
(WT/DS29).
On 2 February 1998, India requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 13
February 1998, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request toestablish a panel by India, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 13 March 1998.
Japan, the Philippines, Thailand, the US and H ong Kong, China reserved their third-party
rights. On 11 June 1998, the Panel was composed.  The report of the Panel was circulated to
Members on 31 May 1999.  The Panel found that Turkey's measures are inconsistent with
Articles XI and XIII of GATT 1994, and consequently inconsistent also with Article 2.4 of
the ATC.  The Panel also rejected Turkey's assertion that its measures are justified by Article
XXIV of GATT 1994.
On 26 July 1999, Turkey notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the Panel.  The report of the Appellate Body was circulated on
21 October 1999.  The Appellate Body upheld the Panel's conclusion that Article XXIV of
GATT 1994 does not allow Turkey to adopt, upon the formation of a customs union with theEC, quantitative restrictions which were found to be inconsistent with Articles XI and XIII of
GATT 1994 and Article 2.4 of the ATC.  However, the Appellate Body concluded that the
Panel erred in its legal reasoning in interpreting Article XXIV of GATT 1994.
At its meeting on 19 November 1999, the DSB adopt ed the Appellate Body report and the Panel
report, as modified by the Appellate Body report.
11. WT/DS44 – Japan - Measures Affecting Consumer Photographic Film and Paper
Complaint by the United States.  On 13 June  1996, the United States requested consultations
with Japan concerning Japan's laws, regulati ons and requirements affecting the distribution,
offering for sale and internal sale of importe d consumer photographic film and paper.  The US
alleged that:
• the Japanese Government treated imported film and paper less favourably through these
measures, in violation of GATT Articles III and X.
• these measures nullify or impair benefits accruing to the US (a non-violation claim).
On 20 September 1996, the US requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 3
October 1996, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to
establish a panel by the US, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 16 October 1996.
The EC and Mexico reserved their third part y rights.  On 12 December 1996, the US requested
the Director-General to determine the composition of the Panel.  On 17 December 1996, the
Panel was composed.  The report of the Panel was circulated to Members on 31 March 1998.
The Panel found:
• that the US had not demonstrated that the Japanese 'measures' cited by the US nullified or
impaired, either individually or collectively, be nefits accruing to the US within the meaning
of GATT Article XXIII:1(b);
• that the US had not demonstrated that the Ja panese distribution 'measures' cited by the US
accord less favourable treatment to imported photographic film and paper within the
meaning of GATT Article III:4;  and
• that the US did not demonstrate that Japan failed to publish administrative rulings of
general application in violation of GATT Article X:1.
The Panel report was adopted by the DSB on 22 April 1998.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 68
12. WT/DS46 – Brazil - Export Financing Programme for Aircraft
Complaint by Canada.  On 19 June 1996, Canada requested consultations with Brazil based on
Article 4 of the Subsidies Agreement, which provides for special procedures for export
subsidies. Canada claimed that export subsidies granted under the Brazilian Programa de
Financiamento às Exportações (PROEX) , to foreign purchasers of Brazil's Embraer aircraft are
inconsistent with the Subsidies Agreement Articles 3, 27.4 and 27.5.
Canada requested the establishment of a panel on 16 September 1996, alleging violations of
both the Subsidies Agreement and GATT 1994.  The DSB considered this request at its meeting
on 27 September 1996.  Due to Brazil's objection to the establishment of a panel, Canada agreed
to modify its request, limiting the scope of th e request to the Subsidies Agreement.  The
modified request was submitted by Canada on 3 October 1996 but was subsequently withdrawn
prior to a DSB meeting at which it was to be considered.
On 10 July 1998, Canada again requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on
23 July 1998, the DSB established a Panel.  The EC and the US reserved their third-party rights.
On 16 October 1998, Canada requested the Director-General to determine the composition of
the Panel.  On 22 October 1998, the Panel was composed.  The report of the Panel was
circulated to Members on 14 April 1999.  Th e Panel found that Brazil's measures were
inconsistent with Articles 3.1(a) and 27.4 of the Subsidies Agreement.
On 3 May 1999, Brazil notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the Panel. The re port of the Appellate Body was circulated to
Members on 2 August 1999.  The Appellate Body upheld all the findings of the panel, but
reversed and modified the panel's interpretation of  the "material advantage" clause in item (k) of
the Illustrative List of Export Subsid ies in Annex I of the SCM Agreement.
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report a nd the Panel Report, as modified by the
Appellate Body Report, on 20 August 1999.
13. WT/DS48 – European Communities - Measures Affecting Livestock and Meat
(Hormones)
Complaint by Canada.  On 28 June 1996, Canada requested consultations with the EC regarding
the importation of livestock and meat from live stock that have been treated with certain
substances having a hormonal action unde r GATT Article XXII and the corresponding
provisions in the SPS, TBT and Agriculture Agreements.  Violations SPS Articles 2, 3 and 5;
GATT Article III or XI; TBT Article 2; and Agriculture Article 4 are alleged.  The Canadian
claim was essentially the same as the US claim (WT/DS26), for which a panel was establishedearlier.
On 16 September 1996, Canada requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 27
September 1996, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request
to establish a panel by Canada, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 16 October 1996.On 4 November 1996, the Panel was composed.  The report of the Panel was circulated to
Members on 18 August 1997.  The Panel found that  the EC ban on imports of meat and meat
products from cattle treated with any of six specific hormones for growth promotion purposes
was inconsistent with Articles 3.1, 5.1 and 5.5 of the SPS Agreement.
On 24 September 1997, the EC notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the Panel.  The Appe llate Body examined this appeal with that of
WT/DS26.  The report of the A ppellate Body was circulated to Members on 16 January 1998.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 69
The Appellate Body upheld the Panel's finding that the EC import prohibition was inconsistent
with Articles 3.3 and 5.1 of the SPS Agreement, but reversed the Panel's finding that the EC
import prohibition was inconsistent with Articles 3.1 and 5.5 of the SPS Agreement.  On the
general and procedural issues, the Appellate B ody upheld most of the findings and conclusions
of the Panel, except with respect to the burden of proof in proceedings under the SPS
Agreement.
The Appellate Body report and the Panel report,  as modified by the Appellate Body, were
adopted by the DSB on 13 February 1998.
14. WT/DS50 – India - Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical
Products
Complaint by the United States.  On 2 July 1996, the US requested consultations with India
concerning the alleged absence of patent protection for pharmaceutical and agricultural
chemical products in India. Violations of  the TRIPS Agreement Articles 27, 65 and 70 are
claimed.
The DSB established a panel at its meeting on 20 November 1996.  The EC reserved their third
party rights.  On 29 January 1997, the Panel was composed.  The report of the Panel was
circulated on 5 September 1997.  The Panel found that India has not complied with its
obligations under Article 70.8(a) or Article 63(1) and (2) of the TRIPS Agreement by failing to
establish a mechanism that adequately preserves novelty and priority in respect of applicationsfor product patents for pharmaceutical and agricultu ral chemical inventions, and was also not in
compliance with Article 70.9 of the TRIPS Agreem ent by failing to establish a system for the
grant of exclusive marketing rights.
On 15 October 1997, India notified its intention to  appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the Panel. The re port of the Appellate Body was circulated to
Members on 19 December 1997.  The Appellate B ody upheld, with modifications, the Panel's
findings on Articles 70.8 and 70.9, but ruled that Arti cle 63(1) was not within the Panel's terms
of reference.
The Appellate Body report and the Panel report,  as modified by the Appellate Body, were
adopted by the DSB on 16 January 1998.
15. WT/DS54, WT/DS55, WT/DS 59 and WT/DS64 – Indonesia - Certain Measures
Affecting the Automobile Industry
Complaints by the European Communities (WT/DS54), Japan (WT/DS55 and WT/DS64), and
the United States (WT/DS59).  On 3 Octobe r 1996, the EC requested consultations with
Indonesia, on 4 October 1996 and 29 November  1996, Japan requested consultations with
Indonesia, and on 8 October 1996, the US request ed consultations with Indonesia concerning
Indonesia's National Car Programme.  The EC alleged that the exemption from customs duties
and luxury taxes on imports of "national vehicles" and components thereof, and related
measures were in violation of Indonesia's obligations under Articles I and III of GATT 1994,
Article 2 of the TRIMs Agreement and Article 3 of the SCM Agreement.  Japan contended that
these measures were in violation of Indonesi a's obligations under Articles I:1, III:2, III:4 and
X:3(a) of GATT 1994, as well as Articles 2 and 5.4 of the TRIMs Agreement.  The US
contended that the measures were in violati on of Indonesia's obligations under Article I and III
of GATT 1994, Article 2 of the TRIMs Agreement,  Article 3, 6 and 28 of the SCM Agreement
and Articles 3, 20 and 65 of the TRIPS Agreement.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 70
On 17 April 1997, Japan requested the establishment of a panel with respect to complaints
WT/DS55 and WT/DS64.  At its meetin g on 30 April 1997, the DSB deferred the
establishment of a panel. On 12 May 1997, the EC requested the establishment of a panel
with respect to WT/DS54.  At its m eeting on 23 May 1997, the DSB deferred the
establishment of a panel.  Further to the EC's and Japan's second requests, the DSB establisheda panel at its meeting on 12 June 1997.  In accordance with Article 9.1 of the DSU, the DSB
decided that a single panel will examine the disputes WT/DS54, WT/DS55 and WT/DS64.
India, Korea and the US reserved their third party rights.
On 12 June 1997, the US requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 25 June
1997, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish
a panel by the US, the DSB established a Panel at its meeting on 30 July 1997.  In accordancewith Article 9.1 of the DSU, the DSB decided that a single panel will examine this dispute
together with WT/DS54, WT/DS55 and WT/DS64.  India and Ko rea reserved their third party
rights.
On 25 July 1997, the EC and Japan requested the Director-General to determine the
composition of the Panel.  On 29 July 1997, the Panel was composed.
The report of the Panel was circulated to Members on 2 July 1998.  The Panel found that
Indonesia was in violation of Articles I a nd II:2 of GATT 1994, Article 2 of the TRIMs
Agreement, Article 5(c) of the SCM Agreement, but was not in violati on of Article 28.2 of the
SCM Agreement.  The Panel however, found that the complainants had not demonstrated that
Indonesia was in violation of Ar ticles 3 and 65.5 of the TRIPS Agreement. At its meeting on 23
July 1998, the DSB adopted the Panel report.
16. WT/DS56 – Argentina - Certai n Measures Affecting Imports of Footwear, Textiles,
Apparel and Other Items
Complaint by the United States.  On 4 October 1996, the US requested consultations with
Argentina concerning the imposition of specific duties on these items in excess of the bound
rate and other measures by Argentina. The US c ontended that these measures violate Articles II,
VII, VIII and X of GATT 1994, Article 2 of the TBT Agreement, Article 1 to 8 of the
Agreement on the Implementation of Articl e  VII of GATT 1994, and Article 7 of the
Agreement on Textiles and Clothing.
On 9 January 1997, the US requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 22
January 1997, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to
establish a panel by the US, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 25 February 1997.
The EC and India reserved their third-party ri ghts.  On 4 April 1997, the Panel was composed.
The report of the Panel was circulated on 25 November 1997.  The Panel found that the
minimum specific duties imposed by Argentina on textiles and apparel are inconsistent with the
requirements of Article II of GATT, and that  the statistical tax of three per cent ad valorem
imposed by Argentina on imports is inconsistent with the requirements of Article VIII of
GATT.
On 21 January 1998, Argentina notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the Panel. The re port of the Appellate Body was circulated to
Members on 27 March 1998.  The Appellate Body upheld, with some modification, the Panel's
findings and conclusions.
The Appellate Body report and the Panel report,  as modified by the Appellate Body, were
adopted by the DSB on 22 April 1998.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 71
17. WT/DS58 – United States - Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products
Complaint by India, Malaysia, Pakistan a nd Thailand. On 8 October 1996, India, Malaysia,
Pakistan and Thailand requested consultations with the US concerning a ban on importation of
shrimp and shrimp products from these complainants imposed by the US under Section 609 of
US Public Law 101-162. Viola tions of Articles I, XI and XIII of GATT 1994, as well
nullification and impairment of benefits, were alleged.
On 9 January 1997, Malaysia and Thailand requested the establishment of a panel.  At its
meeting on 22 January 1997, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  On 30 January
1997, Pakistan also requested the establishment of a panel.  Further to Malaysia's, Pakistan's and
Thailand's requests, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 25 February 1997.  Australia,
Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, the EC, Guatemal a, Hong Kong, India, Japan, Mexico, Nigeria,
the Philippines, Senegal, Singapore and Sri Lanka reserved their third-party rights.
On 25 February 1997, India also requested the establishment of a panel on the same matter.  At
its meeting on 20 March 1997, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a
second request to establish a panel by India, the DSB agreed to establish a panel at its meetingon 10 April 1997.  It was also agreed to incorporat e this panel with that already established in
respect of the other complainants. El Salvador a nd Venezuela reserved their third party rights, in
addition to those delegations who had reserved thei r third-party rights to the panel established at
the requests of Malaysia, Pakistan and Thailand.
On 15 April 1997, the Panel was composed.
The report of the Panel was circulated to Members on 15 May 1998.  The Panel found that the
import ban in shrimp and shrimp products as applied by the United States is inconsistent with
Article XI:1 of GATT 1994, and cannot be justified under Article XX of GATT 1994.
On 13 July 1998, the US notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the Panel. The re port of the Appellate Body was circulated to
Members on 12 October 1998.  The Appellate Body reversed the Panel's finding that the US
measure at issue is not within the scope of measures permitted under the chapeau of Article XX
of GATT 1994, but concluded that the US m easure, while qualifying for provisional
justification under Article XX(g), fails to meet  the requirements of the chapeau of Article XX.
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report a nd the Panel Report, as modified by the
Appellate Body Report, on 6 November 1998.
18. WT/DS60 – Guatemala - Anti-D umping Investigation Regarding Imports of Portland
Cement from Mexico
Complaint by Mexico.  On 15 October 1996, Mexico  requested consultations with Guatemala in
respect of an anti-dumping investigation commen ced by Guatemala with regard to imports of
portland cement from Mexico. Mexico alleged that this investigation was in violation of
Guatemala's obligations under Articles 2, 3, 5 and 7.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
On 4 February 1997, Mexico requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 25
February 1997, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to
establish a panel by Mexico, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 20 March 1997.
The US, Canada, Honduras and El Salvador rese rved their third-party rights. On 21 April 1997,
Mexico requested the Director-General to dete rmine the composition of the Panel.  On 1 May
1997, the Panel was composed.  The report of the Panel was circulated to Members on 19 June
1998.  The Panel found that Guatemala had failed to comply with the requirements of ArticleWT/DS/OV/7
Page 72
5.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by initiating the investigation on the basis of evidence of
dumping, injury and casual link that was not "s ufficient" as a justification for initiation.
On 4 August 1998, Guatemala notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the Panel. The re port of the Appellate Body was circulated to
Members on 2 November 1998.  The Appellate Body reversed the Panel's finding that the
dispute was properly before the Panel, on the ground that Mexico did not comply with Article
6.2 of the DSU in its request for a panel since it did not identify the measure it was complaining
against.  Having found that the dispute was no t properly before the Panel, the Appellate Body
could not make any conclusions on the findings by  the Panel on the substantive issues that were
also the subject of the appeal.  The Appell ate Body stressed that its decision was without
prejudice to Mexico's right to pursue new di spute settlement proceedings on this matter.
At the DSB meeting on 25 November 1998, the DS B adopted the Appellate Body Report and
the Panel Report, as reversed by the Appellate Body Report.
19. WT/DS62, WT/DS67 and WT/DS 68 – European Communities - Customs Classification
of Certain Computer Equipment
Complaints by the United States.  These are in respect of the alleged reclassification by the
European Communities, for tariff purposes, of certain Local Area Network (LAN) adapter
equipment and personal computers with multim edia capability. The US alleged that these
measures violate Article II of GATT 1994.
At its meeting on 25 February 1997, the DSB established a panel in respect of the complaint
WT/DS62.  Japan, Korea, India and Singapore reserv ed their third-party rights.  At its meeting
on 20 March 1997, the DSB established a panel in respect of the complaints WT/DS67 and
WT/DS68.  In accordance with Article 9.1 of the DSU, the DSB agreed to establish a single
panel to examine the complaints  WT/DS62, WT/DS 67 and WT/DS68.
The report of the Panel was circulated to Members on 5 February 1998.  The Panel found that
the EC failed to accord imports of LAN equi pment from the US treatment no less favourable
than that provided for in the EC Schedule of commitments, thereby acting inconsistently with
Article II:1 of GATT 1994.
On 24 March 1998, the EC notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the Panel. The re port of the Appellate Body was circulated to
Members on 5 June 1998.  The Appellate Body reversed the Panel's conclusion that the EC
tariff treatment of LAN equipment is in consistent with Article II:1 of GATT 1994.
At its meeting on 22 June 1998, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel
report, as modified by the Appellate Body report.
20. WT/DS69 – European Communities - Measures Affecting Importation of Certain
Poultry Products
Complaint by Brazil.  On 24 February 1997, Br azil requested consulta tions with the EC in
respect of the EC regime for the importation of  certain poultry products and the implementation
by the EC of the Tariff Rate Quota for these products.  Brazil contended that the EC measures
are inconsistent with Articles X and XXV II of GATT 1994 and Articles 1 and 3 of the
Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures.  Brazil also contended that the measures nullify or
impair benefits accruing to it directly or indirectly under GATT 1994.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 73
On 12 June 1997, Brazil requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 25 June
1997, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish
a panel by Brazil, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 30 July 1997.  Thailand and the
US reserved their third-party rights. On 11 August 1997, the Panel was composed.  The report
of the Panel was circulated to Members on 12 March 1998.  The panel found that Brazil had notdemonstrated that the EC had failed to implemen t and administer the tariff rate quota for poultry
in line with its obligations under the cited agreements.
On 29 April 1998, Brazil notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the Panel. The re port of the Appellate Body was circulated to
Members on 13 July 1998.  The Appellate Body upheld most of the Panel's findings and
conclusions, but reversed the Panel's finding that  the EC had acted inconsistently with Article
5.1(b) of the Agreement on Agriculture.  The A ppellate Body, however, concluded that the EC
had acted inconsistently with Article 5.5 of the Agreement on Agriculture.
At its meeting on 23 July 1998, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel
report, as modified by the Appellate Body report.
21. WT/DS70 – Canada - Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft
Complaint by Brazil.  On 10 March 1997, Brazil requested consultations with Canada in respect
of certain subsidies granted by the Government of Canada or its provinces intended to support
the export of civilian aircraft.  The request wa s made pursuant to Article 4 of the Subsidies
Agreement.  Brazil contended that these measures are inconsistent with Article 3 of the
Subsidies Agreement.
At its meeting on 23 July 1998, the DSB established a panel.  The US reserved its third party
rights.  On 16 October 1998, Brazil requested the Director-General to determine the
composition of the Panel.  On 22 October 1998, the Panel was composed. The report of the
panel was circulated to Members on 14 April 1999. The Panel found that certain of Canada's
measures were inconsistent with Articles 3.1(a) and 3.2 of the Subsidies Agreement, but
rejected Brazil's claim that EDC assistance to th e Canadian regional aircraft industry constitutes
export subsidies.
On 3 May 1999, Canada notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the Panel. The re port of the Appellate Body was circulated to
Members on 2 August 1999.  The Appellate Body upheld the findings of the panel.
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body  and Panel Reports on 20 August 1999.
22. WT/DS75 and WT/DS84 – Korea - Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages
Complaints by the European Communities and the United States.  On 4 April 1997, the EC
requested consultations with Korea in respect of internal taxes imposed by Korea on certain
alcoholic beverages pursuant to its Liquor Tax Law and Education Tax Law.  The EC
contended that the Korean Liquor Tax Law and Education Tax Law appear to be inconsistent
with Korea's obligations under Article III:2 of GATT 1994.  On 23 May 1997, the US requested
consultations with Korea in respect of the same  measures complained of by the EC.  The US
also alleged violations of Article III:2.
On 10 September 1997, the EC and the US requested the establishment of a panel.  At its
meeting on 25 September 1997, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a
second request to establish a panel by the EC and the US, the DSB established a panel at its
meeting on 16 October 1997.  Canada and Mexico reserved their third-party rights.  On 26WT/DS/OV/7
Page 74
November 1997, the EC and the US requested the Director-General to determine the
composition of the Panel.  On 5 December 1997, the Panel was composed.  The report of the
Panel was circulated to Members on 17 September 1998.  The Panel found that:
• soju (both diluted and distilled), is directly competitive and substitutable with the imported
distilled alcoholic beverages that were in issue, namely, whisky, brandy, rum, gin, vodka,
tequila, liqueurs and ad-mixtures.
• Korea has taxed the imported products in a dissimilar manner and that the tax differential
was more than de minimis , and is applied so as to afford protection to domestic production.
• The Panel therefore concluded that Kor ea had violated Article III:2 of GATT 1994.
On 20 October 1998, Korea notified its intention to  appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the Panel. The re port of the Appellate Body was circulated to
Members on 18 January 1999.  The Appellate Body upheld the panel's findings on all points.
The DSB adopted the Panel and Appella te Body Reports on 17 February 1999.
23. WT/DS76 – Japan - Measures Affecting Agricultural Products
Complaint by the United States.  On 7 April 1997, the US requested consultations with Japan in
respect of the latter's prohibition, under quarantine measures, of imports of certain agricultural
products.  The US alleged that Japan prohibits  the importation of each variety of a product
requiring quarantine treatment until the quarantine treatment has been tested for that variety,
even if the treatment has proved to be effectiv e for other varieties of the same product.  The US
alleged violations of Articles 2, 5 and 8 of  the SPS Agreement, Article XI of GATT 1994, and
Article 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  In addition, the US made a claim for nullification
and impairment of benefits.
On 3 October 1997, the US requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 16
October 1997, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to
establish a panel by the US, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 18 November 1997.The EC, Hungary and Brazil reserved their third-party rights. The report of the Panel was
circulated to Members on 27 October 1998.  The Panel found that Japan acted inconsistently
with Articles 2.2 and 5.6 of the SPS Agreement, and Annex B and, consequently, Article 7 of
the SPS Agreement.
On 24 November 1998, Japan notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the Panel. The re port of the Appellate Body was circulated to
Members on 22 February 1999.  The Appellate B ody upheld the basic finding that Japan's
varietal testing of apples, cherries, nectarines and walnuts is inconsistent with the requirements
of the SPS Agreement.
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report a nd the Panel Report, as modified by the
Appellate Body Report, on 19 March 1999.
24. WT/DS79 – India - Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical
Products
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 28 April 1997, the EC requested consultations
with India in respect of the alleged absence in  India of patent protection for pharmaceutical and
agricultural chemical products, and the absence of formal systems that permit the filing of
patent applications of and provide exclusiv e marketing rights for such products.  The EC
contended that this is inconsistent with India's obligations under Article 70, paragraphs 8 and 9,WT/DS/OV/7
Page 75
of the TRIPS Agreement (see similar US co mplaint in WT/DS50, where the Panel and
Appellate Body reports were adopted on 16 January 1998).
On 9 September 1997, the EC requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 25
September 1997, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second requestto establish a panel by the EC, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 16 October 1997.
The US reserved its third-party rights. The report of the Panel was circulated to Members on 24
August 1998.  The Panel found that India has not  complied with its obligations under Article
70.8(a) of the TRIPS Agreement by failing to establish a legal basis that adequately preserves
novelty and priority in respect of applica tions for product patents for pharmaceutical and
agricultural chemical inventions, and was also not in compliance with Article 70.9 of the TRIPS
Agreement by failing to establish a system for the grant of exclusive marketing rights. At its
meeting on 2 September 1998, the DSB adopted the Panel Report.
25. WT/DS87 and WT/DS110 – Chile - Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages
Complaints by the European Communities.  On 4 June 1997 and 15 December 1997, the EC
requested consultations with Chile in respect of Chile's Special Sales Tax on spirits, whichallegedly imposes a higher tax on imported spirits than on Pisco , a locally brewed spirit.  The
EC's second request (WT/DS110), takes issue wi th the modification to the law on taxation on
alcoholic beverages passed by Chile to address the concerns of the EC in WT/DS87.  The EC
contended that this differential treatment of imported spirits violates Article III:2 of GATT
1994.
On 3 October 1997, the EC requested the establishment of a panel in respect of the complaint
WT/DS87.  At its meeting on 16 October 1997, the DSB deferred the establishment of a
panel.  Further to a second request to establish a panel by the EC, the DSB established a panel
at its meeting on 18 November 1997. Canada, Mexi co, Peru and the US reserved their third-
party rights.
Further to the EC's complaint with respect to WT /DS110, the DSB established a panel at its
meeting on 25 March 1998.  The DSB also agreed that a single panel be established to examine
the two complaints.  Peru, Canada and the US re served their third-party rights.  On 10 and 11
June 1998, the EC and Chile, respectively, request ed the Director-General to determine the
composition of the Panel.  On 1 July 1998, the Panel was composed. The report of the panelwas circulated to Members on 15 June 1999.  The panel found that Chile's Transitional System
and its New System for taxation of distille d alcoholic beverages was inconsistent with
Article III:2 of GATT 1994.
On 13 September 1999, Chile notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the Panel. The re port of the Appellate Body was circulated to
Members on 13 December 1999.  The Appellate B ody upheld the panel's interpretation and
application of Article III:2 of GATT 1994, subject to exclusion of certain considerations relied
upon by the panel.
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report a nd the Panel Report, as modified by the
Appellate Body Report, on 12 January 2000.
26. WT/DS90 – India - Quantitative Restrictions  on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and
Industrial Products
Complaint by the United States.  On 15 July 1997, the US requested consultations with India in
respect of quantitative restrictions maintained by India on importation of a large number of
agricultural, textile and industrial products.  The US contended that these quantitativeWT/DS/OV/7
Page 76
restrictions, including the more than 2,700 agricultural and industrial product tariff lines notified
to the WTO, are inconsistent with India's obligations under Articles XI:1 and XVIII:11 of
GATT 1994, Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agricu lture, and Article 3 of the Agreement on
Import Licensing Procedures.
On 3 October 1997, the US requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 16
October 1997, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to
establish a panel, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 18 November 1997.  On 10
February 1998, the US requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the
Panel.  On 20 February 1998, the Panel was com posed.  The report of the Panel was circulated
to Members on 6 April 1999.  The panel found that th e measures at issue were inconsistent with
India's obligations under Articles XI and XVIII11 of GATT 1994, and to the extent that themeasures apply to products subject to the Ag reement on Agriculture, are inconsistent with
Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  The panel also found the measures to be
nullifying or impairing benefits accruing to the United States under GATT 1994, and the
Agreement on Agriculture.
On 26 May 1999, India notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the Panel.  The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to
Members on 23 August 1999.  The Appellate Body upheld all of the findings of the panel that
were appealed from.
The DSB adopted the Panel and Appellate Body  reports at its meeting on 22 September 1999.
27. WT/DS98 – Korea - Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Certain Dairy
Products
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 12 August 1997, the EC requested consultations
with Korea in respect of a definitive safeguard measure imposed by Korea on imports of certain
dairy products.  The EC contended that under the provisions of different governmental
measures, Korea has imposed a safeguard measure in the form of an import quota on imports of
certain dairy products.  The EC considered that th is measure is in violation of Articles 2, 4, 5
and 12 of the Agreement on Safeguard Measures , as well as a violation of Article XIX of
GATT 1994.
On 9 January 1998, the EC requested the establishment of a panel.  At the DSB meeting on
22 January 1998, the EC informed the DSB that it was, for the time being, not pursuing the
panel request.  On 10 June 1998, the EC made a another request to establish a panel.  At its
meeting on 22 June 1998, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to another
request to establish a panel by the EC, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 23 July1998. The US reserved its third party rights.  On 20 August 1998, the Panel was composed.  The
report of the panel was circulated to Member s on 21 June 1999.  The panel found that Korea's
measure is inconsistent with Articles 4.2(a), and 5 of the Agreement on Safeguards, but rejected
the EC claims under Article XIX of GAT T 1994, Articles 2.1, 12.1 (although it found that
Korea's notifications to the Committee on Safeguar ds were not timely, and to that extent were
inconsistent with Article 12.1), 12.2 a nd 12.3 of the Agreement on Safeguards.
On 15 September 1999, Korea notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the Panel. The re port of the Appellate Body was circulated to
Members on 14 December 1999.  The Appellate Body  reversed one of the panel's conclusions
on the interpretation of Article XIX of GATT 1994 and its relationship with the Agreement on
Safeguards; upheld one, but reversed another of the panel's interpretations of Article 5.1 of the
Agreement on Safeguards; and concluded that Ko rea violated Article 12.2 of the Agreement on
Safeguards, thereby reversing in part the panel's finding.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 77
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report a nd the Panel Report, as modified by the
Appellate Body Report, on 12 January 2000.
28. WT/DS99 – United States - Anti-Dumping  Duty on Dynamic Random Access Memory
Semiconductors (DRAMS) of One Megabit or Above from Korea
Complaint by Korea.  On 14 August 1997, Korea requested consultations with the US in respect
of a decision of the US Depart ment of Commerce (DoC) not to revoke the anti-dumping duty
on dynamic random access memory semi-conductors (DRAMS) of one megabyte or above
originating from Korea.  Korea contended that the DoC's decision was made despite the finding
that the Korean DRAM producers have not dump ed their products for a period of more than
three and a half consecutive years, and despite the existence of evidence demonstratingconclusively that Korean DRAM producers will not engage in dumping DRAMS in the future.
Korea considered that these measures are in vi olation of Articles 6 and 11 of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement.
On 6 November 1997, Korea requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 18
November 1997, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to
establish a panel by Korea, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 16 January 1998. On
10 March 1998, Korea requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the
Panel.  On 19 March 1998, the Panel was composed.  The report of the Panel was circulated on
29 January 1999.  The Panel found the measures compla ined of to be in violation of Article 11.2
of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. At its meeting on 19 March 1999, the DSB adopted the Panel
Report.
29. WT/DS103 and WT/DS113 – Canada - Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and
the Exportation of Dairy Products
Complaints by the United States and New Zealand.
On 8 October 1997, the US requested consultations with Canada in respect of export subsidies
allegedly granted by Canada on dairy products a nd the administration by Canada of the tariff-
rate quota on milk.  The US contended that these export subsidies by Canada distort markets for
dairy products and adversely affect US sales of  dairy products.  The US alleged violations of
Article II, X and X1 of GATT 1994, Articles 3, 4, 8, 9 and 10 of the Agreement on Agriculture,
Article 3 of the Subsidies Agreement, a nd Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Import Licensing
Agreement.
On 29 December 1997, New Zealand requested cons ultations with Canada in respect of an
alleged dairy export subsidy scheme commonly referred to as the "special milk classes" scheme.New Zealand contended that the Canadian "special  milk classes" scheme is inconsistent with
Article XI of GATT, and Articles 3, 8, 9 and 10 of the Agreement on Agriculture.
On 2 February 1998, the US requested the estab lishment of a panel in respect of WT/DS103.
At its meeting on 13 February 1998, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  On 25March 1998, further to requests from the US and New Zealand, the DSB established, pursuant
to Article 9.1 of the DSU, a single panel to  examine the disputes WT/DS103 and WT/DS113.
Australia and Japan reserved their third-pa rty rights. On 12 August 1998, the Panel was
composed.  The report of the Panel was circulated to Members on 17 May 1999.  The Panel
found that the measures complained against were  inconsistent with Canada's obligations under
Article II:1(b) of GATT 1994, and Articles 3.3 and 8 of the Agreement on Agriculture by
providing export subsidies as listed in Ar ticle 9.1(a) and 9.1(c) of the Agreement on
Agriculture.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 78
On 15 July 1999, Canada notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the Panel.  The report of the Appellate Body was circulated on
13 October 1999.  The Appellate Body ruled as follows:
• it reversed the Panel's interpretation of Article 9.1(a) and, in consequence, reversed the
Panel's finding that Canada acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 3.3 and 8of the Agreement on Agriculture.
• it upheld the Panel's finding that Canada wa s in violation of Article 3.3 and 8 of the
Agreement on Agriculture in respect of export  subsidies listed in Article 9.1(c) of the
Agreement on Agriculture.
• it partly reversed the Panel's finding that Ca nada acted inconsistently with its obligations
under Article II:1(b) of GATT 1994.
At its meeting on 27 October 1999, the DSB adopted  the Appellate Body report and the Panel
report, as modified by the Appellate Body report.
30. WT/DS108 – United States - Tax Treatm ent for "Foreign Sales Corporations"
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 18 November 1997, the EC requested
consultations with the US in re spect of Sections 921-927 of the US Internal Revenue Code and
related measures, establishing special tax trea tment for "Foreign Sales Corporations" (FSC).
The EC contended that these provisions were inconsistent with US obligations under Articles
III:4 and XVI of the GATT 1994, Articles 3.1(a) and (b) of the Subsidies Agreement, and
Articles 3 and 8 of the Agreement on Agriculture.
On 1 July 1998, the EC requested the establishment of a Panel.  In the request for a panel, the
EC invoked Article 3.1(a) and (b) of the Subsidies Agreement, and Articles 3 and 8, 9 and 10 of
the Agreement on Agriculture, and did not pursue the claims under the GATT 1994.  At its
meeting on 23 July 1998, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second
request to establish a panel by the EC, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 22September 1998.  Barbados, Canada and Japan reserved their third-parties rights.  On 9
November 1998, the Panel was composed.  The report of the panel was circulated to Members
on 8 October 1999.  The panel found that, through the FSC scheme, the United States had acted
inconsistently with its obligations under Article  3.1(a) of the Subsidies Agreement as well as
with its obligations under Article 3.3 of the Ag reement on Agriculture (and consequently with
its obligations under Article 8 of that Agreement).
On 28 October 1999, the US notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the panel.  On  2 November 1999, the US withdrew its notice of
appeal pursuant to Rule 30 of the Working Pro cedures for Appellate Review, stating that the
withdrawal was conditional on its right to file a new notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 20 of the
Working Procedures.  On 26 November 1999, the US  notified its intention to appeal certain
issues of law and legal interpretations developed by the panel.  The report of the Appellate Body
was circulated to Members on 24 February 2000.  The Appellate Body ruled as follows:
• it upheld the panel's finding that the FSC measure constituted a prohibited subsidy under
Article 3.1(a) of the SCM Agreement.
• it reversed the panel's finding that the FSC m easure involved "the provision of subsidies to
reduce the costs of marketing exports" of agricultural products under Article 9.1(d) of the
Agriculture Agreement and, in consequence, reversed the panel's findings that the US had
acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 3.3 of the Agriculture Agreement.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 79
• it found that the US acted inconsistently with  its obligations under Articles 10.1 and 8 of the
Agriculture Agreement by applying export subsidies, through the FSC measure, in amanner which results in, or threatens to l ead to, circumvention of its export subsidy
commitments with respect to agricultural products.
• it also emphasized that it was not ruling that a Member must choose one kind of tax system
over another so as to be consistent with that Member's WTO obligations.
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and th e panel report, as modified by the Appellate
Body report, at its meeting on 20 March 2000.
31. WT/DS114 – Canada - Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products
Complaint by the European Communities and their member States.  On 19 December 1997, the
EC requested consultations with Canada in respect of the alleged lack of protection of
inventions by Canada in the area of pharmaceuticals under the relevant provisions of theCanadian implementing legislation, in particular the Patent Act.  The EC alleged that Canada's
legislation is not compatible with its obligations under the TRIPS Agreement, because it does
not provide for the full protection of patented pharmaceutical inventions for the entire duration
of the term of protection envisaged by Ar ticles 27.1, 28 and 33 of the TRIPS Agreement.
On 11 November 1998, the EC requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 25
November 1998, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to
establish a panel by the EC, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 1 February 1999.
Australia, Brazil, Colombia, Cuba, India, Is rael, Japan, Poland, Switzerland, Thailand and the
United States reserved their third-party rights.  On 15 March 1999, the EC and their memberStates requested the Director-General to determ ine the composition of the Panel.  On 25 March
1999, the Panel was composed.  The report of the panel was circulated to Members on 17
March 2000.  The panel found that:
• the so-called regulatory review exception provided for in Canada's Patent Act
(Section 55.2(1)) – the first aspect of the Patent Act challenged by the EC - was not
inconsistent with Article 27.1 of the TRIPS Agreement and was covered by the exception
in Article 30 of the TRIPS Agreement and th erefore not inconsistent with Article 28.1 of
the TRIPS Agreement.  Under the regulatory review exception, potential competitors of a
patent owner are permitted to use the patented invention, without the authorization of the
patent owner during the term of the patent, for the purposes of obtaining governmentmarketing approval, so that they will have re gulatory permission to sell in competition with
the patent owner by the date on which the patent expires.
• the so-called stockpiling exception (Section 55.2(2)) –the second aspect of the Patent Act
challenged by the EC, was inconsistent with Article 28.1 of the TRIPS Agreement and wasnot covered by the exception in Article 30 of the TRIPS Agreement.  Under the stockpiling
exception, competitors are allowed to manufacture and stockpile patented goods during acertain period before the patent expires, but the goods cannot be sold until after the patent
expires.  The panel considered that, unlike the regulatory review exception, the stockpiling
exception constituted a substantial curtailment of the exclusionary rights required to be
granted to patent owners under Article 28.1 to such an extent that it could not be
considered to be a limited exception within  the meaning of Article 30 of the TRIPS
Agreement.
The DSB adopted the panel report at its meeting on 7 April 2000.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 80
32. WT/DS121 - Argentina - Safeguard Measures on Imports of Footwear
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 3 April 1998, the EC requested consultations
with Argentina in respect of provisional and definitive safeguard measures imposed by
Argentina on imports of footwear.  The EC a sserted that by Resolution 226/97 of 24 February
1997, Argentina imposed a provisional safeguard measure in the form of specific duties onimports of footwear effective from 25 Fe bruary 1997, which was followed by Resolution
987/97, which imposed a definitive safeguard measure on these imports effective from
13 September 1997.  The EC alleged that the abov e measures violate Articles 2, 4, 5, 6 and 12
of the Agreement on Safeguards, and Article XIX of GATT 1994.
On 10 June 1998, the EC requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 22 June
1998, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish apanel, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 23 July 1998.  Brazil, Indonesia, Paraguay,
the US and Uruguay reserved their third-par ties rights. On 15 September 1998, the Panel was
composed.  The report of the panel was circulated on 25 June 1999.  The panel found that
Argentina's measure is inconsistent with Ar ticles 2 and 4 of the Agreement on Safeguards.
On 15 September 1999, Argentina notified its intenti on to appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the Panel. The re port of the Appellate Body was circulated to
Members on 14 December 1999.  The Appellate  Body upheld the panel's finding that
Argentina's measure is inconsistent with Artic les 2 and 4 of the Agreement on Safeguards, but
reversed certain findings and conclusions of the panel in respect of the relationship between the
Agreement on Safeguards and Article XIX of GATT 1994 and the justification of imposing
safeguard measures only on non-MERCOSU R third country sources of supply.
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report a nd the Panel Report, as modified by the
Appellate Body Report, on 12 January 2000.
33. WT/DS122 – Thailand - Anti-Dumping Duties on  Angles, Shapes and Sections of Iron or
Non-Alloy Steel and H-Beams from Poland
Complaint by Poland. On 6 April 1998, Poland requested consultations with Thailand
concerning the imposition of final anti-dumping duties on imports of angles, shapes and
sections of iron or non-alloy steel and H-beams.  Poland asserted that provisional
anti-dumping duties were imposed by Thailand on 27 December 1996, and a finalanti-dumping duty of 27.78% of CIF value for these products, produced or exported by any
Polish producer or exporter, was imposed on 26 May 1997.  Poland further asserted that
Thailand refused two requests by Poland for disclosure of findings.  Poland contended that
these actions by Thailand violate Articles 2, 3, 5 and 6 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
On 13 October 1999, Poland requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 27
October 1999, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to
establish a panel by Poland, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 19 November 1999.
The EC, Japan and the US reserved their third-party rights. On 20 December 1999, the Panel
was composed.  The report was circulated to Members on 28 September 2000.  The Panelconcluded that:
(i) Poland failed to establish that Thailand had acted inconsistently with its obligations
under Article 2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement or Article VI of the GATT 1994 in
the calculation of the amount for profit in constructing normal value.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 81
(ii) Thailand's imposition of the definitive anti-dumping measure on imports of H-beams
from Poland was inconsistent with the requirements of Article 3 of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement in that:
• inconsistently with the second sentence of Article 3.2 and Article 3.1, the Thai
authorities did not consider, on the basis of an "objective examination" of
"positive evidence" in the disclosed factual basis, the price effects of dumped
imports;
• inconsistently with Articles 3.4 and 3.1, the Thai investigating authorities failed
to consider certain factors listed in Article 3.4, and failed to provide an adequateexplanation of how the determination of injury could be reached on the basis of
an "unbiased or objective evaluation" or an "objective examination" of "positive
evidence" in the disclosed factual basis; and
• inconsistently with Articles 3.5 and 3.1, the Thai authorities made a
determination of a causal relationship between dumped imports and any possible
injury on the basis of (a) their findings concerning the price effects of dumped
imports, which the Panel had already found to be inconsistent with the second
sentence of Article 3.2 and Article 3.1; and (b) their findings concerning injury,
which the Panel had already found to be inconsistent with Article 3.4 and 3.1.
(iii) under Article 3.8 of the DSU, in cases where there is infringement of the
obligations assumed under a covered agreement, the action is considered prima
facie  to constitute a case of nullification or impairment of benefits under that
agreement, and that, accordingly, to th e extent Thailand has acted inconsistently
with the provisions of the AD Agreement, it has nullified or impaired benefitsaccruing to Poland under that Agreement.
On 23 October 2000, Thailand notified the DSB of its decision to appeal certain issues of law
covered in the Panel Report and legal interpretations developed by the Panel. The Appellate
Body circulated its report on 12 March 2001.  The Appellate Body:
• upheld the Panel's conclusion that with respect to the claims under Articles 2, 3 and 5 of
the AD Agreement, the request for the establishment of a panel submitted by Poland in
this case was sufficient to meet the requirements of Article 6.2 of the DSU;
• reversed the finding of the Panel that the AD Agreement requires a panel reviewing the
imposition of an anti-dumping duty to consider only the facts, evidence and reasoning
that were disclosed to, or discernible by, Polish firms at the time of the finaldetermination of dumping.  The Appellate Body was of the view that there was no basis
for the Panel's reasoning, either in Article 3.1 of the AD Agreement, which lays down the
obligations of Members with respect to the determination of injury, or in Article 17.6 of
the AD Agreement, which sets out the standard of review for panels.
• Although having reversed the reasoning of the Panel on this issue, it left undisturbed the
Panel's main findings of violation;
• upheld the Panel's conclusion under Article 3.4 of the AD Agreement.  The Appellate
Body agreed with the Panel that Article 3.4 requires a mandatory evaluation of all thefactors listed in that provision,
• concluded that the Panel did not err in its application of the burden of proof, or in the
application of the standard of review under Article 17.6(i) of the AD Agreement.
At its meeting of 5 April 2001, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the panel
report, as modified by the Appellate Body report.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 82
34. WT/DS126 – Australia - Subsidies Provided to Producers and Exporters of Automotive
Leather
Complaint by the United States.  On 4 May 1998, the US requested consultations with Australia
in respect of prohibited subsidies allegedly pr ovided to Australian producers and exporters of
automotive leather, including subsidies provid ed to Howe and Company Proprietary Ltd. (or
any of its affiliated and/or parent companies), which allegedly involve preferential government
loans of about A$25 million and non-commercial terms and grants of about A$30 million.  The
US contended that these measures violate the obligations of Australia under Article 3 of the
Subsidies Agreement.
Further to the US's request, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 22 June 1998 (see also
WT/DS106).  On 27 October 1998, the US requested  the Director-General to determine the
composition of the Panel.  On 2 November 1998, the Panel was composed.  The report of the
Panel was circulated to Members on 25 May 1999.  The Panel found that the loan from the
Australian Government to Howe/ALH is not  a subsidy contingent upon export performance
within the meaning of Article 3.1(a) of the SC M Agreement, but that the payments under the
grant contract are subsidies within the meaning of Article 1 of the SCM Agreement, which are
contingent upon export performance within the mean ing of Article 3.1(a) of that Agreement. At
its meeting on 16 June 1999, the DSB adopted the Panel report.
35. WT/DS132 – Mexico - Anti-Dum ping Investigation of High-Fructose Corn Syrup
(HFCS) from the United States
Complaint by the United States.  On 8 May 1998, the US requested consultations with Mexico
in respect of an anti-dumping investigation of  high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) grades 42 and
55 from the US, conducted by Mexico.  The US alleged that on 27 February 1997, the
Government of Mexico published a notice initiating this anti-dumping investigation on the basis
of an application dated 14 January 1997 from the Mexican National Chamber of Sugar andAlcohol Producers.  The US further alleged th at on 23 January 1998, Mexico issued  a notice of
final determination of dumping and injury in that investigation, and consequently imposed
definitive anti-dumping measures on these imports from the United States.  The US contended
that the manner in which the application for an  anti-dumping investigation was made, as well as
the manner in which a determination of threat of injury was made, is inconsistent with
Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 12 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
On 8 October 1998, the US requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 21
October 1998, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to
establish a panel by the US, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 25 November 1998.
Jamaica and Mauritius reserved their third-party rights.  On 13 January 1999, the Panel was
composed.  The report of the panel was circulated to Members on 28 January 2000.  The Panelfound that:
• Mexico's initiation of the anti-dumping investigation on imports of HFCS from the US was
consistent with the requirements of  Articles 5.2, 5.3, 5.8, 12.1 and 12.1.1(iv) of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement.
• Mexico's imposition of the definitive anti-dumping measure on imports of HFCS from the
US was inconsistent with the following provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement:
Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.7 and 3.7(i); Article 7.4; Ar ticle 10.2; Article 10.4; and Articles 12.2
and 12.2.2.
The DSB adopted the panel report at its meeting on 24 February 2000.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 83
36. WT/DS135 – European Communities - Measure s Affecting the Prohibition of Asbestos
and Asbestos Products
Complaint by Canada.  On 28 May 1998, Canada requested consultations with the EC in respect
of measures imposed by France, in particular Decree of 24 December 1996, with respect to the
prohibition of asbestos and produc ts containing asbestos, incl uding a ban on imports of such
goods.  Canada alleged that these measures violate Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the SPS Agreement,
Article 2 of the TBT Agreement, and Articles III, XI and XIII of GATT 1994.  Canada also
alleged nullification and impairment of benef its accruing to it under the various agreements
cited.
On 8 October 1998, Canada requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meetings on 21
October 1998, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request toestablish a panel by Canada, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 25 November 1998.
The US reserved its third-party rights.  The report of the panel was circulated to Members on
18 September 2000. The Panel found that:
• the "prohibition" part of the Decree of 24 December 1996 does not fall within the scope
of the TBT Agreement;
• the part of the Decree relating to "exceptions" does fall within the scope of the TBT
Agreement.  However, as Canada had not made any claim concerning the compatibilitywith the TBT Agreement of the part of the Decree relating to exceptions, the Panel
refrained from reaching any conclusion with regard to the latter;
• chrysotile asbestos fibres as such and fibres that can be substituted for them as such are
like products within the meaning of Article III:4 of the GATT 1994;
• the asbestos-cement products and the fibro-cement products for which sufficient
information had been submitted to the Panel are like products within the meaning of
Article III:4 of the GATT 1994;
• with respect to the products found to be like,  the Decree violates Article III:4 of the
GATT 1994;
• insofar as it introduces a treatment of these products that is discriminatory under
Article III:4, the Decree is justified as such and in its implementation by the provisionsof paragraph (b) and the introductory clause of Article XX of the GATT 1994;
• Canada has not established that it suffered non-violation nullification or impairment of a
benefit within the meaning of Article XXIII:1(b) of the GATT 1994.
On 23 October 2000, Canada notified the Dispute Settlement Body of its decision to appeal
certain issues of law covered in the Panel Report and legal interpretations developed by the
Panel. The Appellate Body circulated its report on 12 March 2001. The Appellate Body:
• ruled that the French Decree, prohibiting asbestos and asbestos-containing products had
not been shown to be inconsistent with the European Communities' obligations under theWTO agreements;
• reversed the Panel's finding that the TBT Agreement does not apply to the prohibitions in
the measure concerning asbestos and asbestos-containing products and found that theTBT Agreement applies to the measure viewed as an integrated whole.  The Appellate
Body concluded that it was unable to examine Canada's claims that the measure wasinconsistent with the TBT Agreement;
• reversed the Panel's findings with respect to "like products", under Article III:4 of the
GATT 1994.  The Appellate Body ruled, in particular, that the Panel erred in excluding
the health risks associated with asbestos from its examination of "likeness".
• reversed the Panel's conclusion that the measure is inconsistent with Article III:4 of the
GATT 1994.  The Appellate Body itself examined Canada's claims under Article III:4 ofWT/DS/OV/7
Page 84
the GATT 1994 and ruled that Canada has not satisfied its burden of proving the
existence of "like products" under that provision; and
• upheld the Panel's conclusion, under Article XX(b) of the GATT 1994, that the French
Decree is "necessary to protect human … life or health".
In this appeal, the Appellate Body adopted an additional procedure "for the purposes of this
appeal only" to deal with amicus curiae  submissions.  The Appellate Body received, and
refused, 17 applications to file such a submission.  The Appellate Body also refused to accept
14 unsolicited submissions from non-governmental organizations that were not submitted
under the additional procedure.
At its meeting of 5 April 2001, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the panel
report, as modified by the Appellate Body report.
37. WT/DS136 – United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 9 June 1988, the EC requested consultations
with the US in respect of the alleged failure of the US to repeal its Anti-Dumping Act of 1916.
The EC contended that the US Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 is still in force and is applicable tothe import and internal sale of any foreign pr oduct irrespective of its origin, including products
originating in countries which are WTO Members.   The EC also alleged that the 1916 Act exists
in the US statute books in parallel with the Ta riff Act of 1930, as amended, which includes the
US implementing legislation of multilateral Anti-Dumping provisions.  The EC alleged
violations of Articles III: 4, VI:1, and VI:2 of GATT 1994, Article XVI:4 of the WTO
Agreement, and Articles 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
On 1 November 1998, the EC requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 25
November 1998, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to
establish a panel by the EC, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 1 February 1999.India, Japan and Mexico reserved their thir d-party rights.  On 1 April 1999, the Panel was
composed.  The report of the panel was circulated to Members on 31 March 2000.  The panel
considered that:
• Article VI:1 of GATT 1994 applies to any situation where a Member addresses the type of
transnational price discrimina tion defined in that Article.
• on the basis of the terms of the 1916 Act, its legislative history and its interpretation by US
courts, the transnational price discriminati on test found in the 1916 Act met the definition
of Article VI:1 of GATT 1994.
• by not providing exclusively for the injury te st set out in Article VI, the 1916 Act violated
Article VI:1 of the GATT 1994;
• by providing for the imposition of treble dama ges, fines or imprisonment, instead of anti-
dumping duties, the 1916 Act violated Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994;
• by not providing for a number of proce dural requirements found in the Anti-Dumping
Agreement, the 1916 Act violated Articles 1, 4 and 5.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement;
and
• by violating Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of th e GATT 1994, the 1916 Act violated Article XVI:4
of the WTO Agreement.
On 29 May 2000, the US notified its intention to  appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the panel. The Appe llate Body examined this appeal with that of
WT/DS162.  The Appella te Body report was circulated to Members on 28 May 2000.  The
Appellate Body upheld all of the findings and conclusions of the panel that were appealed.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 85
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as upheld by the Appellate
Body report, on 26 September 2000.
38. WT/DS138 – United States – Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Certain Hot-Rolled
Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Produc ts Originating in the United Kingdom
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 30 June 1998, the EC requested consultations
with the US in respect of th e alleged imposition of countervailing duties on certain hot-rolled
lead and bismuth carbon steel (leaded bars) from th e UK. The EC asserted that  the US imposed
countervailing duties of 1.69 per cent on United Engineering Steels Ltd (UES) for the review
period 1 January 1994 to 31 December 1994, and of 2.4 per cent for the review period 1 January
1995 to 20 March 1995, on the basis of subsidies which had been granted to British Steel
Corporation (BSC).  The EC also contende d that the US imposed countervailing duties on
British Steel plc (BSplc) / British Steel Engineering Steels LTD (BSES) for the review period
1 January 1996 to 31 December 1996 on the basis of subsidies granted to BSC before its
privatization in 1988.  The EC alleged that these impositions of countervailing duties constitute
a violation of Articles 1.1(b), 10, 14 and 19.4 of the Subsidies Agreement.
On 14 January 1999, the EC requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 1
February 1999, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to
establish a panel by the EC, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 17 February 1999.
Brazil and Mexico reserved their third-party rights.  On 16 March 1999, the Panel was
composed.  The report of the panel was circulated to Members on 23 December 1999.  Thepanel found that by imposing countervailin g duties on 1994, 1995 and 1996 imports of leaded
bars produced by UES and BSES respectively, the US violated Article 10 of the Subsidies
Agreement.  In reaching this conclusion, the pa nel noted that the presumption of "benefit"
flowing from untied, non-recurring "financial cont ributions" even after changes in ownership
was rebutted in the circumstances surrounding the changes in ownership leading to the creation
of UES and BSplc/BSES respectively, inter alia , because the change in ownership involved the
payment of consideration for the productive assets etc. acquired by those entities from BSC.
According to the panel, the US should ther efore have examined whether the production of
leaded bars by UES and BSplc/BSES resp ectively, and not BSC, was subsidised.
On 27 January 2000, the US notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the panel.  The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to
Members on 10 May 2000.  The Appellate Body upheld all of the findings of the panel that
were appealed but on one point corrected the reasoning of the panel.
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the panel report, as upheld by the Appellate
Body report, on 7 June 2000.
39. WT/DS139 and WT/DS142 – Canada – Cert ain Measures Affecting the Automotive
Industry
Complaints by Japan and the European Communities.
On 3 July 1998, Japan requested consultations with  Canada in respect of measures being taken
by Canada in the automotive industry.  Japan contended that under Canadian legislation
implementing an automotive products agreement (Auto Pact) between the US and Canada, only
a limited number of motor vehicle manufacturers ar e eligible to import vehicles into Canada
duty free and to distribute the motor vehicles in Canada at the wholesale and retail distribution
levels.  Japan further contended that this duty- free treatment is contingent on two requirements:WT/DS/OV/7
Page 86
(i) a Canadian value-added (CVA) content re quirement that applies to both goods and
services; and
(ii) a manufacturing and sales requirement.  Japan alleges that these measures are
inconsistent with Articles I:1, III:4 and XXIV of GATT 1994, Article 2 of the TRIMs
Agreement, Article 3 of the SCM Agreemen t, and Articles II, VI and XVII of GATS.
On 17 August 1998, the EC requested consultati ons with Canada in respect of the same
measures raised by Japan in WT/DS139 and cites the same provisions alleged to be in violation,
except for Article XXIV of GATT 1994, which was cited by Japan but is not cited by the EC.
On 12 November 1998, Japan requested the establishment of a panel in respect of WT/DS139.
At is meeting on 25 November 1998, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further torequests to establish a panel by Japan and the EC, at its meeting on 1 February 1999, the DSB
established a single panel, pursuant to Article 9.1 of the DSU, to examine the complaints
WT/DS139 and WT/DS142.  India, Korea, and the US  reserved their third-party rights.  On 15
March 1999, the EC and Japan requested the Director-General to determine the composition of
the Panel.  On 25 March 1999, the Panel was composed.  The report of the panel was circulatedto Members on 11 February 2000.  The panel found that:
• the conditions under which Canada granted its import duty exemption were inconsistent
with Article I of GATT 1994 and not ju stified under Article XXIV of GATT 1994.
• the application of the CVA requirements to be inconsistent with Article III:4 of GATT
1994.
• the import duty exemption constitutes a prohi bited export subsidy in violation of
Article 3.1(a) of the SCM Agreement.
• the manner in which Canada conditioned access to the import duty exemption is
inconsistent with Article II of GATS and could not justified unde r Article V of GATS.
• the application of the CVA requirements constitutes a violation of Article XVII of the
GATS.
On 2 March 2000, Canada notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the panel.  The A ppellate Body report was circulated to Members
on 31 May 2000.  The Appellate Body:
• reversed the panel's conclusion that Article 3.1(b) of the Subsidies Agreement did not
extend to contingency "in fact".
• considered that the panel had failed to examin e whether the measure at issue affected trade
in services as required under Article I:1 of the GATS.
• reversed the panel's conclusion that the impor t duty exemption was inconsistent with the
requirements of Article II:1 of the GATS as well as the panel's findings leading to that
conclusion.
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and th e Panel report, as modified by the Appellate
Body report, on 19 June 2000.
40. WT/DS141 – European Communities – Anti-D umping Duties on Imports of Cotton-
Type Bed-Linen from India
Complaint by India.  On 3 August 1998, India requested consultations with the EC in respect
of Council Regulation (EC) No 2398/97 of 28 November 1997 on imports of cotton-type bed-
linen from India.  India asserted that the EC initiated anti-dumping proceedings againstimports of cotton- type bed-linen from India by publishing a notice of initiation in September
1996. Provisional anti-dumping duties were imposed by EC Council Regulation No 1069/97WT/DS/OV/7
Page 87
of 12 June 1997.  This was followed by the imposition of definitive duties in accordance with
the above-mentioned EC Council Regulation No 2398/97 of 28 November 1997.  India
contended that:
• the determination of standing, the initiation, the determination of dumping and injury as
well as the explanations of the EC authorities' findings are inconsistent with WTO law.
• the EC authorities' establishment of the facts was not proper and that the EC's evaluation
of facts was not unbiased and objective.
• the EC has not taken into account the special situation of India as a developing country.
• there were violations of Articles 2.2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.8, 6, 12.2.2, and
15 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, and Articles I and VI of the GATT 1994.
On 7 September 1999, India requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 22
September 1999, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second requestto establish a panel by India, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 27 October 1999.
Egypt, Japan and the US reserved their third-party rights.  On 12 January 2000, India
requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the Panel.  On 24 January
2000, the Panel was composed.  The panel report was circulated on 30 October 2000.  The
panel concluded that:
(i) the EC did not act inconsistently with its obligations under Articles 2.2, 2.2.2, 3.1,
3.4, 3.5, 5.3, 5.4, and 12.2.2 of the AD Agreement in:
• calculating the amount for profit in constructing normal value;
• considering all imports from India (and Egypt and Pakistan) as dumped in the
analysis of injury caused by dumped imports;
• considering information for producers comprising the domestic industry but not
among the sampled producers in analyzing the state of the industry;
• examining the accuracy and adequacy of the evidence prior to initiation;
• establishing industry support for the application; and
• providing public notice of its final determination.
(ii) The panel, however, also concluded th at the EC acted inconsistently with its
obligations under Articles 2.4.2, 3.4, and 15 of the AD Agreement in:
• determining the existence of margins of dumping on the basis of a methodology
incorporating the practice of zeroing;
• failing to evaluate all relevant factors having a bearing on the state of the
domestic industry, and specifically all the factors set forth in Article 3.4;
• considering information for producers not part of the domestic industry as
defined by the investigating authority in analyzing the state of the industry; and
• failing to explore possibilities of constructive remedies before applying anti-
dumping duties.
On 1 December 2000, the EC notified the DSB of its intention to appeal certain issues of law
covered in the Panel Report and legal interpretations developed by the Panel. The Appellate
Body circulated its report on 1 March 2001. The Appellate Body:
(i) upheld the finding of the Panel that the practice of "zeroing" when establishing "the
existence of margins of dumping", as applied by the EC in the anti-dumping
investigation at issue in this dispute, is inconsistent with Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement;
(ii) reversed the findings of the Panel that:WT/DS/OV/7
Page 88
• the method for calculating amounts for administrative, selling and general costs
and profits provided for in Article 2.2.2(ii) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement maybe applied where there is data on administrative, selling and general costs and
profits for only one other exporter or producer; and
• in calculating the amount for profits under Article 2.2.2(ii) of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement, a Member may exclude sales by other exporters or producers that are
not made in the ordinary course of trade; and
(iii) as a consequence, concluded that the EC, in calculating amounts for administrative,
selling and general costs and profits in the anti-dumping investigation at issue in this
dispute, acted inconsistently with Article 2.2.2(ii) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as modified by the
Appellate Body report, on 12 March 2001.
41. WT/DS146 and WT/DS175 – In dia - Measures Affecting the Automotive Sector
Complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS146).  On 6 October 1998, the EC
requested consultations with India concerning certain measures affecting the automotive
sector being applied by India.  The EC stated that the measures include the documents entitled"Export and Import Policy, 1997-2002", "ITC (HS Classification) Export and Import Policy
1997-2002" ("Classification"), and "Public Notice No. 60 (PN/97-02) of 12 December 1997,
Export and Import Policy April 1997-March 2002", and any other legislative or
administrative provision implemented or consolidated by these policies, as well as MoUs
signed by the Indian Government with ce rtain manufacturers of automobiles.  The EC
contended that:
• under these measures, imports of complete automobiles and of certain parts and
components were subject to a system of non-automatic import licenses.
• in accordance with Public Notice No. 60, import licenses might be granted only to local
joint venture manufacturers that had signed an MoU with the Indian Government,
whereby they undertook, inter alia , to comply with certain local content and export
balancing requirements.
• The EC alleged violations of Articles III and XI of GATT 1994, and Article 2 of the
TRIMs Agreement.
On 1 May 1999, the United States requested consultations (WT/DS175) with India in respect
of certain Indian measures affecting trade and investment in the motor vehicle sector.  TheUnited States contended that the measures in question required manufacturing firms in the
motor vehicle sector to:
(i) achieve specified levels of local content;
(ii) achieve a neutralization of foreign exchange by balancing the value of certain imports
with the value of exports of cars and components over a stated period; and
(iii) limit imports to a value based on the previous year's exports.
According to the United States, these measures were enforceable under Indian law and
rulings, and manufacturing firms in the motor vehicle sector must comply with these
requirements in order to obtain Indian import licenses for certain motor vehicle parts and
components.  The United States considered that these measures violate the obligations ofIndia under Articles III and XI of GATT 1994, and Article 2 of the TRIMS Agreement.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 89
On 15 May 2000, the US requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 19 June
2000, the DSB deferred the establishment of a Panel.  Further to a second request to establish
a panel by the US, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 27 July 2000.  The EC, Japan
and Korea reserved their third-party rights.
On 12 October 2000, the EC also requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on
23 October 2000, the DSB deferred the establishment of a Panel.  Further to a second request
by the EC, the DSB established a panel at its meeting of 17 November 2000.  Since a panel
had already been established with a similar mandate in the framework of the abovementioned
case WT/DS175 , the DSB decided to join the panel with the already established panel in that
case pursuant to Article 9.1 of the DSU.  Japan reserved its third-party rights.  On 14
November 2000, the US requested the Director-General to determine the composition of thePanel.  On 24 November 2000, the Panel was composed.
On 21 December 2001, the Panel circulated its report to the Members.  The Panel concluded
that:
• India had acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article III:4 of the GATT 1994
by imposing on automotive manufacturers an obligation to use a certain proportion oflocal parts and components in the manufacture of cars and automotive vehicles
("indigenization" condition);
• India had acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article XI of the GATT 1994 by
imposing on automotive manufacturers an obligation to balance any importation of
certain kits and components with exports of equivalent value ("trade balancing"condition); and,
• India had acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article III:4 of the GATT 1994
by imposing, in the context of the trade balancing condition, an obligation to offset the
amount of any purchases of previously imported restricted kits and components on the
Indian market, by exports of equivalent value.
The Panel recommended that the DSB requests India to bring its measures into conformity
with its obligations under the WTO Agreements.
On 31 January 2002, India appealed the above Pa nel Report.  In particular, India sought
review of the following Panel's conclusion on the grounds that they are in error and based
upon erroneous findings on issues of law and related legal instruments:
• Articles 11 and 19.1 of the DSU required it to address the question of whether the
measures found to be inconsistent with Articles III:4 and XI:1 of the GATT had been
brought into conformity with the GATT as a result of measures taken by India during the
course of the proceedings, and
• the enforcement of the export obligations that automobile manufacturers incurred until
1 April 2001 under India's former import licensing scheme is inconsistent with Articles
III:4 and XI:1 of the GATT.
On 14 March 2002, India withdrew its appeal. Furt her to India's withdrawal of its appeal, the
Appellate Body issued a short Report outlining the procedural history of the case.  At the
DSB meeting on 5 April 2002, the US commended India's decision to withdraw its appeal and
shared some of India's reservations with regard to Section VIII of the Panel Report.  The EC
considered that the Panel's findings were justified.  Despite its decision to withdraw its appealas a result of the introduction of its new auto policy, India indicated that the findingsWT/DS/OV/7
Page 90
contained in Section VIII were outside of the Panel's terms of reference and were both
factually and legally incorrect.  India requested that the DSB adopt only a part of the Panel
Report and consider the adoption of Section VIII only at its next meeting.  The EC responded
that the Reports should be adopted unconditionally by the parties, thus there was no
justification for India's request.  The DSB proceeded with the adoption in full of the AppellateBody and Panel reports.
42. WT/DS152 – United States – Sections 301-310 of the Trade Act of 1974
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 25 November 1998, the EC requested
consultations with the US in respect of Title III, chapter 1 (sections 301-310) of the US Trade
Act of 1974 (the Trade Act), as amended, and in particular sections 306 and 305 of this Act.
The EC alleged that:
• by imposing strict time limits within which unilateral determinations must be made and
trade sanctions taken, sections 306 and 305 of the Trade Act do not allow the US to
comply with the rules of the DSU in situati ons where a prior multilateral ruling under the
DSU on conformity of measures taken pursuant to implementation of DSB
recommendations has not been adopted by the DSB.
• the DSU procedure resulting in a multilateral finding, even if initiated immediately after
the end of the reasonable period of time for implementation, cannot be finalised, nor cansubsequent DSU procedure for seeking compensation or suspension of concessions be
complied with, within the time limits of sections 306 and 305.
• Title III, chapter 1(sections 301-310) of th e Trade Act, as amended, and in particular
sections 306 and 305 of the Act, are inconsistent with Articles 3, 21, 22 and 23 of the
DSU; Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement; and Articles I, II, III, VIII and XI of GATT1994.
• the Trade Act nullifies and impairs benefits accruing, directly or indirectly, to it under
GATT 1994, and also impedes the objectives of GATT 1994 and of the WTO.
On 26 January 1999, the EC requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 17
February 1999, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request toestablish a panel by the EC, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 2 March 1999.
Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Hong
Kong, India, Israel, Jamaica, Japan, Korea, St. Lucia and Thailand reserved their third-party
rights. On 24 March 1999, the EC requested the Director-General to determine the
composition of the Panel.  On 31 March 1999, the Panel was composed. The report of thepanel was circulated to Members on 22 December 1999.  The Panel found that Sections
304(a)(2)(A), 305(a) and 306(b) of the US Trade Act of 1974 were not inconsistent with
Article 23.2(a) or (c) of the DSU or with any of the GATT 1994 provisions cited.  The panel
noted that its findings were based in full or in part on US undertakings articulated in the
Statement of Administrative Action approved by the US Congress at the time it implementedthe Uruguay Round agreements and confirmed in the statements by the US to the panel.  The
panel stated therefore that should those undertakings be repudiated or in any other way
removed, its findings of conformity would no longer be warranted. The DSB adopted the
panel report at its meeting on 27 January 2000.
43. WT/DS155 – Argentina - Measures on the Ex port of Bovine Hides and the Import of
Finished Leather
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 24 December 1998, the EC requested
consultations with Argentina concerning certai n measures taken by Argentina on the export of
bovine hides and the import of finished leather.  The EC alleged that the de facto  exportWT/DS/OV/7
Page 91
prohibition on raw and semi-tanned bovine hides (which is implemented in part through the
authorization granted by the Argentinian authorities to the Argentinian tanning industry to
participate in customs control procedures of hides before export) is in violation of GATT
Articles; XI:1 (which outlaws de jure  export prohibitions and measures of equivalent effect);
and X:3(a) (which requires uniform and impartial administration of laws and regulations) tothe extent that personnel of the Argentinian Chamber for the tanning industry are authorized
to assist Argentinian customs authorities. Th e EC also claimed that the "additional value
added tax" of 9 per cent on imports of products into Argentina and the "advance turnover tax"
of 3 per cent based on the price of imported goods imposed on operators when importing
goods into Argentina are in violation of  GATT Article III:2 (which prohibits tax
discrimination of foreign products which are like, directly competitive or substitutable to
domestic products).
On 31 May 1999, the EC requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 16 June
1999, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish
a panel by the EC, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 26 July 1999.  On 31 January
2000, the Panel was composed.  The Panel circulated its report on 19 December 2000.  ThePanel concluded that:
• it has not been proved that Resolution (ANA) No. 2235/96 is inconsistent with
Argentina's obligations under Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994;
• Resolution (ANA) No. 2235/96 is inconsistent with Argentina's obligations under
Article X:3(a) of the GATT 1994;
• General Resolution (DGI) No. 3431/91 is inconsis tent with Article III:2, first sentence, of
the GATT 1994;
• General Resolution (DGI) No. 3543/92 is inconsis tent with Article III:2, first sentence, of
the GATT 1994;
• General Resolutions (DGI) No. 3431/91 and 3543/92, although they fall within the terms
of paragraph (d) of Article XX of the GATT 1994, fail to meet the requirements of the
chapeau of Article XX and are therefore not justified under Article XX as a whole;
• there is nullification or impairment of the benefits accruing to the European Communities
under the GATT 1994.
The DSB adopted the Panel Report on 16 February 2001.
44. WT/DS156 – Guatemala - Definitive Anti- dumping Measure regarding Grey Portland
Cement from Mexico
Complaint by Mexico.  On 5 January 1999, Mexico requested consultations with Guatemala
concerning definitive anti-dumping duties imposed by the authorities of Guatemala on
imports of grey Portland cement from Mexico and the proceedings leading thereto.  Mexico
alleged that the definitive anti-dumping measure is inconsistent with Articles 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7,
12 and 18 of the Antidumping Agreement and its Annexes I and II, as well as with Article VI
of GATT 1994.  See also WT/DS60.
On 15 July 1999, Mexico requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 26 July
1999, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish
a panel by Mexico, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 22 September 1999.
Ecuador, El Salvador, the EC, Honduras and the US reserved their third-party rights. On 12
October 1999, Mexico requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the
panel.  On 2 November 1999, the Panel was composed.  The panel report was circulated on24 October 2000. The panel concluded that Guatemala's initiation of an investigation, the
conduct of the investigation and imposition of a definitive measure on imports of greyWT/DS/OV/7
Page 92
Portland cement from Mexico's Cruz Azul is inconsistent with the requirements in the AD
Agreement in that:
• Guatemala's determination that there was sufficient evidence of dumping and threat of
injury to initiate an investigation, is inconsistent with Article 5.3 of the AD Agreement;
• Guatemala's determination that there was sufficient evidence of dumping and threat of
injury to initiate an investigation and consequent failure to reject the application for anti-
dumping duties by Cementos Progreso is inconsistent with Article 5.8 of the AD
Agreement;
• Guatemala's failure to timely notify Mexico under Article 5.5 of the AD Agreement is
inconsistent with that provision;
• Guatemala's failure to meet the requirements for a public notice of the initiation of an
investigation is inconsistent with Article 12.1.1 of the AD Agreement;
• Guatemala's failure to timely provide the full text of the application to Mexico and Cruz
Azul is inconsistent with Article 6.1.3 of the AD Agreement;
• Guatemala's failure to grant Mexico access to the file of the investigation is inconsistent
with Articles 6.1.2 and 6.4 of the AD Agreement;
• Guatemala's failure to timely make Cementos Progreso's 19 December 1996 submission
available to Cruz Azul until 8 January 1997 is inconsistent with Article 6.1.2 of the AD
Agreement;
• Guatemala's failure to provide two copies of the file of the investigation as requested by
Cruz Azul is inconsistent with Article 6.1.2 of the AD Agreement;
• Guatemala's extension of the period of investigation requested by Cementos Progreso
without providing Cruz Azul with a full oppo rtunity for the defence of its interest is
inconsistent with Article 6.2 of the AD Agreement;
• Guatemala's failure to inform Mexico of the inclusion of non–governmental experts in the
verification team is inconsistent with paragraph 2 of Annex I of the AD Agreement;
• Guatemala's failure to require Cementos Progreso's to provide a statement of the reasons
why summarization of the information submitted during verification was not possible isinconsistent with Article 6.5.1 of the AD Agreement;
• Guatemala's decision to grant Cementos Progreso's 19 December submission confidential
treatment on its own initiative is inconsistent with Article 6.5 of the AD Agreement;
• Guatemala's failure to "inform all interested parties of the essential facts under
consideration which form the basis for the decision whether to apply definitive measures"is inconsistent with Article 6.9 of the AD Agreement;
• Guatemala's recourse to "best information available" for the purpose of making its final
dumping determination is inconsistent with Article 6.8 of the AD Agreement;
• Guatemala's failure to take into account imports by MATINSA in its determination of
injury and causality is inconsistent with Articles 3.1, 3.2 and 3.5 of the AD Agreement;
and
• Guatemala's failure to evaluate all relevant factors for the examination of the impact of
the allegedly dumped imports on the domestic industry is inconsistent with Article 3.4.
The DSB adopted the Panel Report on 17 November 2000.
45. WT/DS160 – United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act
Complaint by the European Communities and their member States.  On 26 January 1999, the
EC requested consultations with the US in resp ect of Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act,
as amended by the Fairness in Music Licensing Act, which was enacted on 27 October 1998.
The EC contended that Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act permits, under certain
conditions, the playing of radio and television music in public places (bars, shops, restaurants,
etc.) without the payment of a royalty fee.  The EC considered that this statute is inconsistentWT/DS/OV/7
Page 93
with US obligations under Article 9(1) of the TRIPS Agreement, which requires Members to
comply with Articles 1-21 of the Berne Convention.
The dispute centered on the compatibility of two exemptions provided for in Section 110(5)
of the US Copyright Act with Article 13 of the TRIPS Agreement, which allows certainlimitations or exceptions to exclusive rights of copyright holders, subject to the condition that
such limitations are confined to certain special cases, do not conflict with a normal
exploitation of the work in question and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests
of the right holder:
• The so-called "business" exemption, provided for in sub-paragraph (B) of Section 110(5),
essentially allows the amplification of music broadcasts, without an authorization and a
payment of a fee, by food service and drinking establishments and by retailestablishments, provided that their size does not exceed a certain square footage limit.  It
also allows such amplification of music broadcasts by establishments above this square
footage limit, provided that certain equipment limitations are met.
• The so-called "homestyle" exemption, provided for in sub-paragraph (A) of Section
110(5), allows small restaurants and retail outlets to amplify music broadcasts without an
authorization of the right holders and without the payment of a fee, provided that they useonly homestyle equipment (i.e. equipment of a kind commonly used in private homes).
On 15 April 1999, the EC requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 28 April
1999, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish
a panel by the EC, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 26 May 1999.  Brazil,Australia, Canada, Japan and Switzerland reserved their third-party rights.  On 27 July 1999,
the EC made a request to the Director-in-Charge to determine the composition of the Panel.
On 6 August 1999, the Panel was composed.  The report of the panel was circulated to
Members on 15 June 2000.  The panel found that:
• the "business" exemption provided for in sub-paragraph (B) of Section 110(5) of the US
Copyright Act did not meet the requirements of Article 13 of the TRIPS Agreement andwas thus inconsistent with Articles 11 bis(1)(iii) and 11(1)(ii) of the Berne Convention
(1971) as incorporated into the TRIPS Agreement by Article 9.1 of that Agreement.  The
panel noted, inter alia , that a substantial majority of eating and drinking establishments
and close to half of retail establishments were covered by the business exemption.
• the "homestyle" exemption provided for in sub-paragraph (A) of Section 110(5) of the US
Copyright Act met the requirements of Article 13 of the TRIPS Agreement and was thusconsistent with Articles 11 bis(1)(iii) and 11(1)(ii) of the Berne Convention (1971) as
incorporated into the TRIPS Agreement by Article 9.1 of that Agreement.  Here, the
panel noted certain limits imposed on the beneficiaries of the exemption, permissible
equipment and categories of works as well as the practice by US courts.
The DSB adopted the Panel Report at its meeting on 27 July 2000.
46. WT/DS161 and WT/DS169 – Korea – Measures A ffecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled, and
Frozen Beef
Complaints by the United States and Australia.  On 1 February 1999, the US requested
consultations with Korea in respect of a Korean regulatory scheme that allegedly
discriminates against imported beef by inter alia , confining sales of imported beef to
specialised stores (dual retail system), limiting the manner of its display, and otherwise
constraining the opportunities for the sale of imported beef.  The US alleged that Korea
imposes a markup on sales of imported beef, limits import authority to certain so-calledWT/DS/OV/7
Page 94
"super-groups" and the Livestock Producers Ma rketing Organization ("LPMO"), and provides
domestic support to the cattle industry in Korea in amounts which cause Korea to exceed its
aggregate measure of support as reflected in Korea's schedule.  The US contended that these
restrictions apply only to imported beef, thereby denying national treatment to beef imports,
and that the support to the domestic industry amounts to domestic subsidies that contravenethe Agreement on Agriculture.  The US alleged violations of Articles II, III, XI, and XVII of
GATT 1994; Articles 3, 4, 6, and 7 of the Agreement on Agriculture; and Articles 1 and 3 of
the Import Licensing Agreement.
On 13 April 1999, Australia requested consultations with Korea on the same basis as the US
request.
On 15 April 1999, the US requested the establishment of a panel in respect of WT/DS161.  At
its meeting on 28 April 1999, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a
second request to establish a panel by the US, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on
26 May 1999.  Australia, Canada and New Zealand reserved their third-party rights.  Further
to Australia's request to establish a panel in respect of WT/DS169, the DSB established a
panel at its meeting on 26 July 1999.   Canada, New Zealand and the US reserved their third-
party rights.  At the request of Korea, the DSB agreed that, pursuant to DSU Article 9.1, this
complaint would be examined by the same pane l established in respect of WT/DS161.  On 4
August 1999, the Panel was composed.  The report of the panel was circulated to Members on
31 July 2000.  The panel found that:
• a number of the contested Korean measures benefited, by virtue of a Note in Korea's
Schedule of Concessions, from a transitional period until 1 January 2001, by which date
they had to be eliminated or otherwis e brought into conformity with the WTO
Agreement.
• the requirement that the supply of beef from the LPMO's wholesale market be limited to
specialised imported beef stores and that those stores bear a special sign "Specialized
Imported Beef Store" was in violation of Article III:4 of the GATT 1994, which
violation could not be justified und er Article XX(d) of the GATT 1994.
• the more stringent record-keeping requirements imposed on purchasers of imported beef
were also inconsistent with Article III:4.  Certain other regulations dealing with theimportation and distribution of imported beef were likewise found to violate
Article III:4.
• the LPMO's lack of and delays in calling for tenders and its discharge practices between
November 1997 and the end of May 1998 constituted import restrictions contrary toArticle XI:1 of the GATT 1994 and Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.
Moreover, the LPMO's calls for tenders that were made subject to distinctions between
grass-fed and grain-fed cattle, constituted, in the view of the panel, a restriction
inconsistent with Article XI:1. They also treated imports of beef from grass-fed cattleless favourably than provided for in Korea's Schedule, which was in breach of
Article II:1(a) of the GATT 1994.
• in addition, Korea's domestic support for beef for 1997 and 1998 was not correctly
calculated and exceeded the de minimis  level, contrary to Article 6 of the Agreement on
Agriculture, and was not included in Korea's Current Total AMS, contrary to Article
7.2(a) of the Agreement on Agriculture.
• Korea's total domestic support (Current Total AMS) for 1997 and 1998 exceeded
Korea's commitment levels, as specified in Section 1, Part IV of its Schedule, contrary to
Article 3.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.
On 11 September 2000, Korea notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the panel.  On 11 December 2000, the report of the Appellate BodyWT/DS/OV/7
Page 95
was circulated.  The Appellate Body reversed the Panel's finding on recalculated amounts of
Korea's domestic support for beef in 1997 and 1998, as the Panel used, for these
recalculations, a methodology inconsistent with Article 1(a)(ii) and Annex 3 of the
Agreement on Agriculture; and reversed, therefore, the Panel's following conclusions, based
on these recalculated amounts:
• that Korea's domestic support for beef in 1997 and 1998 exceeded the de minimis  level
contrary to Article 6 of the Agreement on Agriculture;
• that Korea's failure to include Current AMS for beef in Korea's Current Total AMS was
contrary to Article 7.2(a) of that Agreement; and
• that Korea's total domestic support for 1997 and 1998 exceeded Korea's commitment
levels contrary to Article 3.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.
The Appellate Body was unable, in view of the insufficient factual findings made by the
Panel, to complete the legal analysis of:
• whether Korea's domestic support for beef exceeds the de minimis  level contrary to
Article 6 of the Agreement on Agriculture;
• whether the failure to include Current AMS for beef in Korea's Current Total AMS was
contrary to Article 7.2(a) of that Agreement; and
• whether Korea's total domestic support for 1997 and 1998 exceeded Korea's
commitment levels contrary to Article 3.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.
At its meeting of 10 January 2001, the DSB a dopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel
report, as modified by the Appellate Body report.
47. WT/DS162 – United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916
Complaint by Japan.  On 10 February 1999, Japan requested consultations with the US in
respect of the US Anti-Dumping Act of 1916, 15 USC. 72 (1994), ("US 1916 Act").  Japan
alleged that the US 1916 Act stipulates that the importation or sale of imported goods within
the US market in certain circumstances is unlawful, constituting a criminal offence and
inviting civil liability.  Japan further alleged that judicial decisions under the US 1916 Act are
made without the procedural safeguards provided for in the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  Japanstated that a court action had been brought under the US 1916 Act against affiliates of
Japanese companies.  Japan contended that the US 1916 Act is inconsistent with Articles III,
VI and XI of GATT 1994, and the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
On 3 June 1999, Japan requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 16 June
1999, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish
a panel by Japan, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 26 July 1999.  The EC and
India reserved their third-party rights.  On 11 August 1999, the Panel was composed.  The
report of the panel was circulated to Members on 29 May 2000.  The panel considered that
Article VI:1 of GATT 1994 applies to any situation where a Member addresses the type oftransnational price discrimination defined in th at Article.  The panel then found that, on the
basis of the terms of the 1916 Act, its legislative history and its interpretation by US courts, the
transnational price discrimination test found in  the 1916 Act met the definition of Article VI:1
of GATT 1994.  The panel next went on to find that
• by providing for the imposition of treble dama ges, fines or imprisonment, instead of anti-
dumping duties, the 1916 Act violated Artic le VI:2 of the GATT 1994 and Article 18.1 of
the Anti-Dumping Agreement;WT/DS/OV/7
Page 96
• by not providing for a number of procedural  requirements found in Article VI:1 of the
GATT 1994 and the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the 1916 Act violated Articles VI:1 of theGATT 1994 and Articles 1, 4.1, 5.1, 5.2, 5.4 and 18.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; and
• by violating Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT 1994, and Articles 1, 4.1, 5.1, 5.2, 5.4 and
18.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the 1916 Act violated Article XVI:4 of the WTOAgreement and Article 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
On 29 May 2000, the US notified its intention to  appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the panel. The Appe llate Body examined this appeal with that of
WT/DS136.   The Appellate B ody report was circulated to Members on 28 May 2000.  The
Appellate Body upheld all of the findings and conclusions of the panel that were appealed.
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as upheld by the Appellate
Body report, on 26 September 2000.
48. WT/DS163 – Korea – Measures Affecting Government Procurement
Complaint by the United States.  On 16 February 1999, the US requested consultations with
Korea in respect of certain procurement practices of the Korean Airport Construction
Authority (KOACA), and other entities concerned with the procurement of airportconstruction in Korea.  The US claimed that such practices were inconsistent with Korea's
obligations under the Agreement on Governme nt Procurement (GPA). These include
practices relating to qualification for bidding as a prime contractor, domestic partnering, and
the absence of access to challenge procedures that are in breach of the GPA.  The US
contended that KOACA and the other entities are within the scope of Korea's list of centralgovernment entities as specified in Annex 1 of Korea's obligations in Appendix I of the GPA,
and pursuant to Article I(1) of the GPA, apply to the procurement of airport construction.
On 11 May 1999, the US requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 26 May
1999, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establisha panel by the US, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 16 June 1999.  The EC and
Japan reserved their third party rights.  On 30 August 1999, the Panel was composed.  The
report of the panel was circulated to Members on 1 May 2000.  The panel found that:
• the entities conducting procurement for the project at issue were not covered entities
under Korea's Appendix I of the GPA and were not otherwise covered by Korea's
obligations under the GPA.
• based on less than complete Korean answers to certain US questions during negotiations
for Korea's accession to the GPA, there had initially been an error on the part of the US
as to which Korean authority was in charge of  the project at issue.  However, in light of
all the facts the panel considered that there was notice of the error and the US should at
least have conducted further inquiries in this regard before the negotiations were ended.
• the US had not demonstrated that benefits reasonably expected to accrue under the GPA,
or in the negotiations resulting in Korea's accession to the GPA, were nullified orimpaired by measures taken by Korea (whether or not in conflict with the provisions of
the GPA), within the meaning of Article XXII:2 of the GPA.
The DSB adopted the Panel Report at its meeting on 19 June 2000.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 97
49. WT/DS165 – United States – Import Measures  on Certain Products from the European
Communities
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 4 March 1999, the EC requested consultations
with the US in respect of the US decisio n, effective as of 3 March 1999, to withhold
liquidation on imports from the EC of a series of products together valued at over $500million on an annual basis, and to impose a contingent liability for 100% duties on each
individual importation of affected products.  On 2 March 1999, the arbitrators charged with
determining the level of suspension of concessions, requested by the United States in
response to the failure by the EC to implemen t the recommendations of the DSB in respect of
the EC's banana regime (WT/DS27), had asked for additional data from the parties and
informed the parties that they were unable to issue their report within the 60-day period
envisaged by the DSU.  The EC contends that the measure made effective by the US as of3 March 1999 deprives EC imports into the United States, of the products in question, of the
right to a duty not in excess of the rate bound in the US Schedule.  The EC further contended
that, by requiring the deposit of a bond to cover the contingent liability for 100% duties, US
Customs effectively impose 100% duties on each individual importation.  The EC alleged
violations of Articles 3, 21, 22 and 23 of the DS U, and Articles I, II, VIII and XI of GATT
1994.  The EC also alleged nullification and impairment of benefits under GATT 1994, as
well as the impediment of the objectives of the DSU and GATT 1994.  The EC had requested
urgent consultations pursuant to Article 4.8 of the DSU.
On 11 May 1999, the EC requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 26 May
1999, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish
a panel by the EC, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 16 June 1999. Dominica,
Ecuador, India, Jamaica, Japan and St. Lucia reserved their third party rights.  On 29
September 1999, the EC requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the
Panel.  On 8 October 1999, the Panel was composed.  The report of the panel was circulatedto Members on 17 July 2000.  The panel found that:
• the US measure of 3 March 1999 was seeking to redress a WTO violation and was thus
covered by Article 23.1 of the DSU;
• by putting into place that measure prior to the time authorized by the DSB, the US made
a unilateral determination that the revised EC bananas regime in respect of its bananas
import, sales and distribution regime violated WTO rules, contrary to Articles 23.2(a)and 21.5, first sentence, of the DSU.  In doing so, the United States did not abide by the
DSU and thus also violated Article 23.1 together with Article 23.2(a) and 21.5 of the
DSU;
• the increased bonding requirements of the measure of 3 March 1999 as such led to
violations of Articles II:1(a) and II:1(b), first sentence (one panelist dissented,
considering that those requirements rather violated Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994);
• the increased interest charges, costs and fees resulting from the 3 March Measure
violated Article II:1(b), last sentence;
• the measure in question also violated Article I of the GATT 1994;
• in light of these conclusions, the measure of 3 March 1999 constituted a suspension of
concessions or other obligations within the meaning of Articles 3.7, 22.6 and 23.2(c) of
the DSU imposed without DSB authorization and during the ongoing Article 22.6
arbitration process; and
• in suspending concessions in those circumstances, the US did not abide by the DSU and
thus violated Article 23.1 together with Articles 3.7, 22.6 and 23.2(c) of the DSU.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 98
On 12 September 2000, the EC notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the panel. The re port of the Appellate Body was circulated on
11 December 2000.  The Appellate Body:
• concluded that the Panel erred by stating that the WTO-consistency of a measure taken
by a Member to comply with recommendations and rulings of the DSB can be
determined by arbitrators appointed under Article 22.6 of the DSU, and, thus, concluded
that the Panel's statements on this issue have no legal effect.
• concluded that the Panel erred by stating that "[o]nce a Member imposes DSB authorised
suspensions of concessions or obligations, that Member's measure is WTO compatible(it was explicitly authorised by the DSB)", and, thus, concluded that this statement has
no legal effect.
• reversed the Panel's findings that the increased bonding requirements are inconsistent
with Articles II:1(a) and II:2(b), first sentence, of the GATT 1994, and
• reversed the Panel's finding that, by adopting the 3 March Measure, the US acted
inconsistently with Article 23.2(a) of the DSU.
As it upheld the Panel's finding that the 3 March Measure, the measure at issue in this dispute,
is no longer in existence, the Appellate Body did not make any recommendation to the DSB
pursuant to Article 19.1 of the DSU.
At its meeting of 10 January 2001, the DSB a dopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel
report, as modified by the Appellate Body report.
50. WT/DS166 – United States – Definitive Safe guard Measure on Imports of Wheat Gluten
from the European Communities
Complaint by the European Communities. On 17 March 1999, the EC requested consultations
with the US in respect of definitive safegu ard measures imposed by the US on imports of
wheat gluten from the European Communities.  The EC contended that by a Proclamation of
30 May 1998, and a Memorandum of the same date, by the US President, under which the US
imposed definitive safeguard measures in the form of a quantitative limitation on imports ofwheat gluten from the EC, effective as of 1 June 1998.  The EC considered these measures to
be in violation of Articles 2, 4, 5 and 12 of the Agreement on Safeguards; Article 4.2 of the
Agreement on Agriculture; and Ar ticles I and XIX of GATT 1994.
On 3 June 1999, the EC requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 16 June
1999, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish
a panel, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 26 July 1999.  Australia, Canada and
New Zealand reserved their third-party rights.  On 11 October 1999, the Panel was composed.
The report of the panel was circulated to Members on 31 July 2000.  The panel found that:
(i) the United States had not acted inconsistently with Articles 2.1 and 4 of the
Safeguards Agreement or with Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994 in
• redacting certain confidential information from the published USITC Report or
• determining the existence of imports in "increased quantities" and serious injury.
(ii) the definitive safeguard measure imposed by the US on certain imports of wheat
gluten based on the US investigation and determination was inconsistent with
Articles 2.1 and 4 of the Safeguards Agreement in thatWT/DS/OV/7
Page 99
• the causation analysis applied by the USITC did not ensure that injury caused by
other factors was not attributed to imports and
• imports from Canada (a NAFTA partner) were excluded from the application of
the measure after imports from all sources were included in the investigation for
the purposes of determining serious injury caused by increased imports
(following a separate inquiry concerning whether imports from Canada accounted
for a "substantial share" of total imports and whether they "contributedimportantly" to the "serious injury" caused by total imports).
(iii) The panel further concluded that the US failed to notify immediately the initiation of
the investigation under Article 12.1(a) and the finding of serious injury under Article
12.1(b) of the Safeguards Agreement.
(iv) in notifying its decision to take the measure only after the measure was implemented,
the US did not make timely notification under Article 12.1(c).  For the same reason,
the US violated the obligation of Article 12.3 to provide adequate opportunity for
prior consultations on the measure.
(v) the US therefore also violated its obligation under Article 8.1 of the Safeguards
Agreement to endeavour to maintain a substantially equivalent level of concessions
and other obligations to that existing under the GATT 1994 between it and the
exporting Members which would be affected by such measures, in accordance with
Article 12.3 of the Safeguards Agreement.
On 26 September 2000, the US notified its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain
issues of law and legal interpretation covered in the Panel Report and certain legal
interpretations developed by the Panel. The Appellate Body circulated its report on
22 December 2000.  The Appellate Body:
• upheld the Panel's conclusion that the US had not acted inconsistently with its obligations
under Articles 4.2(a) and 4.2(b) of the Safeguards Agreement, but, in so doing, reversedthe Panel's interpretation of Article 4.2(a) of the Safeguards Agreement that the
competent authorities are required to evalua te only the "relevant factors" listed in
Article 4.2(a) of that Agreement as well as an y other "factors" which were clearly  raised
before the competent authorities as relevant by the interested parties in the domesticinvestigation;
• reversed the Panel's interpretation of Article 4.2(b) of the Safeguards Agreement that
increased imports "alone", "in and of themselves", or " per se ", must be capable of causing
"serious injury", as well as the Panel's conclusions on the issue of causation;
• found, nonetheless, that the US had acted inconsistently with its obligations under
Article 4.2(b) of the Safeguards Agreement;
• upheld the Panel's finding that the US had acte d inconsistently with its obligations under
Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Safeguards Agreement;
• upheld the Panel's findings that the US had acted inconsistently with its obligations under
Articles 12.1(a) and 12.1(b) of the Safeguards Agreement;
• reversed the Panel's finding that the US had acted inconsistently with its obligations under
Article 12.1(c) of the Safeguards Agreement; found that the US had acted consistently
with its obligations under Article 12.1(c) of that Agreement to notify "immediately" its
decision to apply a safeguard measure;
• upheld the Panel's finding that the US had acte d inconsistently with its obligations under
Article 12.3 of the Safeguards Agreement, and, in consequence, upheld the Panel's
finding that the US had acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 8.1 of the
Safeguards Agreement;WT/DS/OV/7
Page 100
• the Panel did not act inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU in concluding that the
USITC had "considered industry productivity as required by Article 4.2(a)" of theSafeguards Agreement;
• the Panel did not act inconsistently in finding that the USITC was not required to evaluate
the overall relationship between the protein c ontent of wheat and the price of wheat gluten
as a "relevant factor", under Article 4.2(a) of the Safeguards Agreement, during the post-
1994 period of investigation;  and,
• the Panel did not act inconsistently in dec lining to draw "adverse" inferences from the
refusal of the US to provide certain allegedly confidential information requested from itby the Panel under Article 13.1 of the DSU;
• the Panel acted inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU in finding that "the USITC
Report  provides an adequate, reasoned and reasonable explanation with respect to 'profits
and losses'" and, therefore, reversed this finding;  and found no error in the Panel's
exercise of judicial economy in not examining the claims of the EC underArticle XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994, and also under Article 5 of the Safeguards
Agreement and Article I of the GATT 1994.
At its meeting of 19 January 2001, the DSB a dopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel
report, as modified by the Appellate Body report.
51. WT/DS170 – Canada – Patent Protection Term
Complaint by the United States.  On 6 May 1999, the US requested consultations with Canada
in respect of the term of protection granted to patents that were filed in Canada before
1 October 1989.  The US contended that the TRIPS Agreement obligates Members to grant a
term of protection for patents that runs at least until twenty years after the filing date of the
underlying protection, and requires each Member to grant this minimum term to all patentsexisting as of the date of the application of the Agreement to that Member.  The US alleged
that under the Canadian Patent Act, the term granted to patents issued on the basis of
applications filed before 1 October 1989 is 17 years from the date on which the patent is
issued.  The US contended that this situation is  inconsistent with Articles 33, 65 and 70 of the
TRIPS Agreement.
On 15 July 1999, the US requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 26 July
1999, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish
a panel by the US, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 22 September 1999.  On 13
October 1999, the US requested the Director-General to determine the composition of thePanel.  On 22 October 1999, the Panel was composed.  The report of the panel was circulated
to Members on 5 May 2000.  The panel found that:
• pursuant to Article 70.2 of the TRIPS Agreement, Canada was required to apply the
relevant obligations of the TRIPS Agreement to inventions protected by patents that were
in force on 1 January 1996, i.e. the date of entry into force for Canada of the TRIPSAgreement.
• Section 45 of Canada's Patent Act does not make available a term of protection that does
not end before 20 years from the date of filing as mandated by Article 33 of the TRIPS
Agreement, thus rejecting, inter alia , Canada's argument that the 17-year statutory
protection under its Patent Act was effectively equivalent to the 20-year term prescribed
by the TRIPS Agreement because of average pendency periods for patents, informal and
statutory delays etc.
On 19 June 2000, Canada notified its intention to  appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the panel. The A ppellate Body report was circulated to MembersWT/DS/OV/7
Page 101
on 18 September 2000. The Appellate Body upheld all of the findings and conclusions of the
panel that were appealed.
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as upheld by the Appellate
Body report, on 12 October 2000.
52. WT/DS176 – United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act
Complaint by the European Communities and its Member States.  On 8 July 1999, the EC
requested consultations with the US in respect of Section 211 of the US Omnibus
Appropriations Act.  The EC and its member States alleged as follows:
• Section 211, which was signed into la w on 21 October 1998, did not allow the
registration or renewal in the United States of a trademark, if it was previously abandoned
by a trademark owner whose business and asse ts have been confiscated under Cuban law.
• This law provided that no US court shall recognize or enforce any assertion of such
rights.
• Section 211 US Omnibus Appropriations Ac t was not in conformity with the US'
obligations under the TRIPS Agreement, notably its Article 2 in conjunction with theParis Convention, Article 3, Article 4, Articles 15 to 21, Article 41, Article 42 and
Article 62.
Further to the request of the EC and its member States, the DSB established a panel at its
meeting on 26 September 2000.  Canada, Japan and Nicaragua reserved their third-party
rights. On 17 October 2000, the EC and its member States requested the Director-General to
determine the composition of the Panel.  On 26 October 2000, the Panel was composed.
The Panel circulated its Report on 6 August 2001.  The Panel rejected most of the claims by
the EC and their Member States except that relating to the inconsistency of Section 211(a)(2)
of the Omnibus Appropriations Act with Article 42 of the TRIPS Agreement.  In this regard,
the panel concluded that this Section is inconsistent with the relevant TRIPs Article on thegrounds that it limits, under certain circumstances, right holders' effective access to and
availability of civil judicial procedures.
On 4 October 2001, the EC and its Member States notified their decision to appeal certain
issues of law and legal interpretations developed by the panel report.  The Appellate Bodyreport was circulated to Members on 12 January 2002.  The Appellate Body:
• found, in respect of the protection of trademarks, that Sections 211(a)(2) and (b) of the
Omnibus Appropriations Act violated the national treatment and most-favoured nationobligations under the  TRIPS Agreement  a nd the Paris Convention for the Protection of
Industrial Property, thereby reversing the Panel's findings to the contrary;
• reversed the Panel's finding that Section 211(a)(2) is inconsistent with Article 42 of the
 TRIPS Agreement and concluded that Article 42 contains procedural  obligations, whileSection 211 affects  substantive  trademark rights;
• upheld the Panel's findings that Section 211 does not violate the US' obligations under
Article 2.1 of the  TRIPS Agreement  in conj unction with Article 6quinquies A(1) of the
Paris Convention, and Articles 15 and 16 of the  TRIPS Agreement.  It also upheld the
Panel's finding under Article 42 of the  TRIPS Agreement  in respect of Section 211(b);
andWT/DS/OV/7
Page 102
• reversed the Panel's conclusion that trade names are not a category of intellectual property
protected under the  TRIPS Agreement and then completed the analysis reaching thesame conclusions for trade names as with respect to trademarks.  It also found that
Sections 211(a)(2) and (b) are not inconsistent  with Article 2.1 of the TRIPS Agreement
in conjunction with Article 8 of the Paris Convention (1967).
At its meeting on 1 February 2002, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel
report, as upheld by the Appellate Body report.
53. WT/DS177 and WT/DS178 – United States – Safeguard Measure on Imports of Fresh,
Chilled or Frozen Lamb from New Zealand
Complaints by New Zealand and Australi a.  On 16 July 1999, New Zealand requested
consultations with the US in respect of a safeguard measure imposed by the US on imports oflamb meat from New Zealand (WT/DS177).  New Zealand alleged that by Presidential
Proclamation under Section 203 of the US Trade Act 1974, the US imposed a definitive
safeguard measure in the form of a tariff-rate quota on imports fresh, chilled, or frozen lamb
meat effective from 22 July 1999.  New Zealand contended that this measure is inconsistent
with Articles 2, 4, 5, 11 and 12 of the Agreement on Safeguards, and Articles I and XIX ofGATT 1994.
On 23 July 1999, Australia requested consultations with the US in respect of a definitive
safeguard measure imposed by the US on imports of lamb (WT/DS178).  Australia alleged
that by Presidential Proclamation under Section 203 of the US Trade Act 1974, the USimposed a definitive safeguard measure in the form of a tariff-rate quota on imports of fresh,
chilled, or frozen lamb meat from Australia effective from 22 July 1999.  Australia contended
that this measure is inconsistent with Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 11 and 12 of the Agreement on
Safeguards, and Articles I, II and XIX of GATT 1994.
On 14 October 1999, New Zealand and Australia requested the establishment of a panel.  At
its meeting on 27 October 1999, the DSB deferred the establishment of the panels.  Further to
the second requests to establish a panel by New Zealand and Australia, at its meeting on 19
November 1999, the DSB established, pursuant to Article 9.1 of the DSU, a single panel to
examine the complaints WT/DS177 and WT/D S178.  Canada, the EC, Iceland and Japan
reserved their third-party rights.  Australia reserved its third-party rights in relation to the
complaint by New Zealand, while New Zealand reserved its third-party rights in relation to
the complaint by Australia. On 21 March 2000, the Panel was composed.  The Panel
circulated its report on 21 December 2000.  The Panel concluded that:
• the US has acted inconsistently with Article XIX:1(a) of GATT 1994 by failing to
demonstrate as a matter of fact the existence of "unforeseen developments";
• the US has acted inconsistently with Article 4.1(c) of the Agreement on Safeguards
because the USITC, in the lamb meat investigation, defined the domestic industry as
including input producers as producers of the like product at issue (i.e. lamb meat);
• the complainants failed to establish that th e USITC's analytical approach to determining
the existence of a threat of serious injury, in particular with respect to the prospective
analysis and the time-period used, is inconsistent with Article 4.1(b) of the Agreement on
Safeguards;
• the complainants failed to establish that the USITC's analytical approach to evaluating all
of the factors listed in Article 4.2(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards when determining
whether increased imports threatened to cause serious injury with respect to the domestic
industry as defined in the investigation is inconsistent with that provision;WT/DS/OV/7
Page 103
• the US has acted inconsistently with Article 4.1(c) of the Agreement on Safeguards
because the USITC failed to obtain data in respect of producers representing a majorproportion of the total domestic production by the domestic industry as defined in the
investigation;
• the US has acted inconsistently with Article 4.2(b) of the Agreement on Safeguards
because the USITC's determination in the lamb meat investigation in respect of causation
did not demonstrate the required causal link between increased imports and threat ofserious injury, in that the determination did not establish that increased imports were by
themselves a necessary and sufficient cause of threat of serious injury, and in that the
determination did not ensure that threat of serious injury caused by "other factors" was
not attributed to increased imports;
• by virtue of the above violations of Article 4 of the Agreement on Safeguards, the US
also has acted inconsistently with Article 2.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards.
On 31 January 2001, the US notified the DSB of its intention to appeal certain issues of law
covered in the Panel Report and legal interpretations developed by the Panel. The Appellate
Body circulated its report on 1 May 2001. The Appellate Body:
• upheld the Panel's finding that the US acted inconsistently with Article XIX:1(a) of the
GATT 1994 by failing to demonstrate, as a matter of fact, the existence of "unforeseen
developments";
• upheld the Panel's finding that the United States acted inconsistently with Articles 2.1 and
4.1(c) of the Agreement on Safeguards  because the USITC defined the relevant "domestic
industry" to include growers and feeders of live lambs;
• upheld the Panel's finding that the USITC made a determination regarding the "domestic
industry" on the basis of data that was not sufficiently representative of that industry;  butmodified the Panel's ultimate finding that the US thereby acted inconsistently with
Articles 2.1 and 4.1(c) of the Agreement on Safeguards  by finding, instead, that the
United States thereby acted inconsistently with Articles 2.1 and 4.2(a) of that Agreement;
• found that the Panel correctly interpreted the standard of review, set forth in Article 11 of
the DSU, which is appropriate to its examination of claims made under Article 4.2 of the
Agreement on Safeguards ;  but concluded that the Panel erred in applying that standard in
examining the claims made concerning the USITC's determination that there existed a
threat of serious injury; and found, moreover, that the US acted inconsistently withArticles 2.1 and 4.2(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards  because the USITC Report did
not explain adequately the determination that there existed a threat of serious injury to the
domestic industry;
• reversed the Panel's interpretation of the causation requirements in the Agreement on
Safeguards  but, for different reasons, upheld the Panel's ultimate finding that the US
acted inconsistently with Articles 2.1 and 4.2(b) of the Agreement because the USITC'sdetermination that there existed a causal link between increased imports and a threat of
serious injury did not ensure that injury caused to the domestic industry, by factors other
than increased imports, was not attributed to those imports;
• upheld the Panel's exercise of judicial economy in declining to rule on the claim of
New Zealand under Article 5.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards ;  and
• declined to rule on the respective conditional appeals of Australia and New Zealand
relating to Articles I, II and XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994, and to Articles 2.2, 3.1, 5.1, 8.1,
11.1(a) and 12.3 of the Agreement on Safeguards .
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report, as modified by the
Appellate Body Report, on 16 May 2001.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 104
54. WT/DS179 – United States – Anti-Dumping Mea sures on Stainless Steel Plate in Coils
and Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from Korea
Complaint by Korea.  On 30 July 1999, Korea requested consultations with the US in respect
of Preliminary and Final Determinations of the US's Department of Commerce (DOC) on
Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Korea dated 4 November 1998 and 31 March 1999respectively, and Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from Korea dated 20 January 1999 and
8 June 1999 respectively.  Korea considered that several errors were made by the US in those
determinations which resulted in erroneous findings and deficient conclusions as well as the
imposition, calculation and collection of anti-dumping margins which are incompatible with
the obligation of the US under the provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI
of GATT 1994 and in particular, but not necessa rily exclusively, Article 2, Article 6 and
Article 12 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  Korea believed that the US did not act inconformity with the cited provisions, among others , in its treatment of the following:  certain
US sales made to a bankrupt company;  the calculation of two distinct exchange rate periods
for export sales;  and currency conversion for certain normal value sales made in US dollars.
On 14 October 1999, Korea requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 27
October 1999, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to
establish a panel by Korea, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 19 November 1999.
The EC and Japan reserved their third-party rights.  On 24 March 2000, the Panel was
composed.  The panel circulated its report on 22 December 2000. The panel concluded that:
(i) with respect to  "local sales":
• the US in the Plate  investigation did not act inconsistently with its obligations
under Article 2.4.1, Article 2.4 chapeau ("fair comparison"), and Article 12.2 of
the AD Agreement  nor with its obligations under Article X:3(a) of GATT 1994;
• the US in the Sheet  investigation acted inconsistently with Article 2.4.1 of the
AD Agreement  by performing a currency conversion that was not required.
(ii) with respect to the treatment of unpaid sales, the US:
• acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 2.4 chapeau of the
AD Agreement  in both the Plate  and Sheet  investigations by making allowances
in respect of sales through unaffiliated importers which were not permissible
allowances for differences affecting price comparability;
• acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 2.4 chapeau of the
AD Agreement  in both the Plate and Sheet investigations by making allowances
in respect of sales through an affiliated importer which were not permissible
allowances in the construction of the export price for costs incurred between
importation and resale.
(iii) with respect to multiple averaging, the panel concluded that:
• the US's use of multiple averaging periods in the Plate  and Sheet investigations
was inconsistent with the requirement of Article 2.4.2 to compare "a weightedaverage normal value with a weighted average of all comparable export
transactions";
• the US's use of multiple averaging periods in the Plate  and Sheet investigations
was not inconsistent with Article 2.4.1 of the AD Agreement ;
• the US's use of multiple averaging periods in the Plate  and Sheet  investigations
was not inconsistent with the first sentence of the chapeau of Article 2.4 of the
AD Agreement ("fair comparison").WT/DS/OV/7
Page 105
(iv) to the extent that the US has acted inconsistently with the provisions of the AD
Agreement, it has nullified or impaired benefits accruing to Korea under that
Agreement.
At its meeting of 1 February 2001, the DSB adopted the panel report.
55. WT/DS184 – United States – Anti-Dumping  Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel
Products from Japan
Complaint by Japan.  On 18 November 1999, Japan requested consultations with the US in
respect of the preliminary and final determinations of the US Department of Commerce and
the US International Trade Commission on the anti-dumping investigation of Certain
Hot Rolled Steel Products from Japan issued on 25 and 30 November 1998, 12 February1999, 28 April 1999 and 23 June 1999.  Japan considered that these determinations are
erroneous and based on deficient procedures under the US Tariff Act of 1930 and related
regulations.  The Japanese complaint also concerned certain provisions of the Tariff Act of
1930 and related regulations.  Japan claimed violations of Articles VI and X of the GATT
1994 and Articles 2, 3, 6 (including Annex II), 9 and 10 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
On 11 February 2000, Japan requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 24
February 2000, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to
establish a panel by Japan, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 20 March 2000.
Brazil, Canada, Chile, the EC and Korea reserved their third-party rights.  On 9 May 2000,Japan requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the Panel.  On 24 May
2000, the Panel was composed.  The Panel circulated its report on 28 February 2001.  The
Panel concluded as follows:
• The US acted inconsistently with Articles 6.8 and Annex II of the AD Agreement in its
application of "facts available" to Kawasaki Steel Corporation (KSC), Nippon Steel
Corporation (NSC) and NKK Corporation;
• Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, which mandates that
USDOC exclude only margins based entirely on facts available in determining an all
others rate, is inconsistent with Article 9.4 of the AD Agreement, and that therefore the
US has acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 18.4 of the AD Agreement
and Article XVI:4 of the Marrakesh Agreement by failing to bring that provision intoconformity with its obligations under the AD Agreement; and
• The US acted inconsistently with Article 2.1 of the AD Agreement in excluding certain
home-market sales to affiliated parties from the calculation of normal value on the basis
of  the "arm's length" test. In addition, in lig ht of the findings above, the panel concluded
that the replacement of those sales with sales to unaffiliated downstream purchasers was
inconsistent with Article 2.1 of the AD Agreement.
• With respect to those of Japan's claims not addressed above the panel concluded: (1) that
the claim was not within its terms of reference ("general practice" concerning adversefacts available; "general practice" of excluding certain home-market sales from the
calculation of normal value), or (2) that, in light of considerations of judicial economy, it
is neither necessary nor appropriate to make findings.
On 25 April 2001, the US notified its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues
of law covered in the Panel Report and certain legal interpretations developed by the Panel.The Appellate Body circulated its Report on 24 July 2001.  In this regard, the Appellate Body
upheld the Panel's findings except for the following:WT/DS/OV/7
Page 106
• It reversed the Panel's finding regarding th e inconsistency with Article 2.1 of the Anti-
dumping Agreement of the US's methodology for calculating the normal value as regardsthe using of certain downstream sales made by an investigated exporters' affiliates to
dependent purchasers;
• It found that there was insufficient factual record to allow completion of the analysis of
Japan's claim under Article 2.4 of the Anti-dumping Agreement that the US did not make
a fair comparison in its use of downstream sales when calculating normal value;
• It reversed the Panel's finding that the US did not act inconsistently with the Anti-
dumping Agreement in its application of the captive production provision in itsdetermination of injury sustained by the US hot-rolled steel industry;
• It reversed the Panel's finding that the USITC demonstrated the existence of a causal
relationship, under Article 3.5 of the said agreement, between dumped imports andmaterial injury to that industry; but found that there was insufficient factual record to
allow completion of the analysis of Japan's claim on causation;
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report, as modified by the
Appellate Body Report, on 23 August 2001.
56. WT/DS189 – Argentina – Definitive Anti-Dum ping Measures on Imports of Ceramic
Floor Tiles from Italy
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 26 January 2000, the EC requested
consultations with Argentina in respect of Argentina's definitive anti-dumping measures on
imports of ceramic floor tiles from Italy imposed on 12 November 1999.  The EC claimed
that the Argentinian investigating authority without justification disregarded all the
information on normal value and on export prices provided by the exporters included in the
sample; failed to calculate an individual dumping margin for each of the exporters included inthe sample; failed to make due allowance for the differences in physical characteristics
between the models exported to Argentina and those sold in Italy; and failed to inform the
Italian exporters of the essential facts concerning the existence of dumping which formed the
basis for the decision whether to apply definitive measures.  The EC considered that the anti-
dumping measures in question were inconsis tent with Articles 2.4, 6.8 in conjunction with
Annex II, 6.9 and 6.10 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
On 7 November 2000, the EC requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 26
September 2000, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request
to establish a panel by the EC, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 17 November2000 on the basis of the EC's reduced complaint which relates only to definitive anti-dumping
measures on imports of ceramic floor tiles from Italy.  Japan, Turkey and the US reserved
their third-party rights.  On 12 January 2001, the Panel was composed.
The Panel circulated its report to Members on 28 September 2001.  The Panel found that:
• Argentina acted inconsistently with Arti cle 6.8 and Annex II of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement by disregarding in large part the information provided by the exporter for the
determination of the normal value and export price, and this without informing the
exporters of the reasons for such a rejection;
• Argentina acted inconsistently with Article 6.10 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by not
determining an individual dumping margin for each sampled exporter;
• Argentina acted inconsistently with Article 2.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by
failing to make due allowance for difference in physical characteristics affecting pricecomparability;WT/DS/OV/7
Page 107
• Argentina acted inconsistently with Article 6.9 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by not
disclosing to the exporters the essential facts under consideration which form the basis forthe decision whether to apply definitive measures.
On 5 November 2001, the DSB adopted the Panel Report.
57. WT/DS192 – United States – Transitional Safeguard Measure on Combed Cotton Yarn
from Pakistan
Complaint by Pakistan.  On 3 April 2000, Pakistan requested consultations with the US in
respect of a transitional safeguard measure applied by the United States, as of 17 March 1999,
on combed cotton yarn (United States category 301) from Pakistan (see US Federal Register
of 12 March 1999, document 99-6098).  In accordance with Article 6.10 of the Agreement on
Textiles and Clothing (ATC), the United States had notified the TMB on 5 March 1999 that ithad decided to unilaterally impose a restraint, after consultations as to whether the situation
called for a restraint had failed to produce a mutually satisfactory solution.  In April 1999, the
TMB examined the US restraint pursuant to Article 6.10 of the ATC and recommended that
the US restraint should be rescinded.  On 28 May 1999, in accordance with Article 8.10 of the
ATC, the United States notified the TMB that it considered itself unable to conform to therecommendations issued by the TMB.  Despite a further recommendation of the TMB
pursuant to Article 8.10 of the ATC that the United States reconsider its position, the United
States continued to maintain its unilateral restraint and thus the matter remained unresolved.
Pakistan claimed as follows:
• the transitional safeguards applied by the United States are inconsistent with the United
States' obligations under Articles 2.4 of the ATC and not justified by Article 6 of theATC;
• the US restraint does not meet the requirements for transitional safeguards set out in
paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 7 of Article 6 of the ATC.
On 3 April 2000, Pakistan requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 18 May
2000, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish
a panel by Pakistan, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 19 June 2000.  India and
the EC reserved their third-party rights.  On 30 August 2000, the Panel was composed.
The panel circulated its report on 31 May 2001.  The Panel concluded that the transitional
safeguard measure (quantitative restriction) imposed by the US on imports of combed cotton
yarn from Pakistan as of 17 March 1999, and extended as of 17 March 2000 for a further year
is inconsistent with the provisions of Article 6 of the ATC.  Specifically, the Panel found that:
• Inconsistently with its obligations under 6.2, the US excluded the production of combed
cotton yarn by vertically integrated producers for their own use from the scope of the
"domestic industry producing like and/or directly competitive products" with imported
combed cotton yarn;
• Inconsistently with its obligations under Article 6.4, the US did not examine the effect of
imports from Mexico (and possibly other appropriate Members) individually;
• Inconsistently with its obligations under Articles 6.2 and 6.4, the US did not demonstrate
that the subject imports caused an "actual threat" of serious damage to the domestic
industry.
With respect to the other claims, the Panel found that Pakistan did not establish that the
measure at issue was inconsistent with the US obligations under Article 6 of the ATC.
Specifically, the Panel found that: (a)  Pakistan did not establish that the US determination ofWT/DS/OV/7
Page 108
serious damage was not justified based on the data used by the US investigating authority; (b)
Pakistan did not establish that the US determ ination of serious damage was not justified
regarding the evaluation by the US investigating authority of establishments that ceased
producing combed cotton yarn; (c) Pakistan did not establish that the US determinations of
serious damage and causation thereof were not justified based upon an inappropriately chosenperiod of investigation and period of incidence of serious damage and causation thereof.
The Panel recommended that the DSB request that the US bring the measure at issue into
conformity with its obligations under the ATC, and  suggested that this can best be achieved
by prompt removal of the import restriction.
On 9 July 2001, the US notified its decision to a ppeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of
law covered in the Panel Report and certain legal interpretations developed by the Panel.  On
5 September 2001, the Appellate Body informed the DSB that it would not be able to
circulate its report within the 7 September deadline.  The Report was circulated to Members
on 8 October 2001.  The Appellate Body upheld the Panel's overall conclusion that the
transitional safeguard measure taken by the United States with respect to imports of combedcotton yarn from Pakistan was inconsistent with the ATC.  In particular, the Appellate Body
upheld the Panel's findings that, in taking safeguard action with respect to imports of yarn
from Pakistan, the US: (a) failed to define properly the relevant "domestic industry"
producing yarn; and (b) failed to examine the effect of imports of yarn from other major
suppliers individually when attributing serious damage to imports from Pakistan.Furthermore, the Appellate Body concluded that  the Panel should not have considered data
which were not in existence at the time when the US determined that serious damage had
been caused to the domestic industry.  It declined to rule on the broader issue of whether an
importing Member must attribute serious damage to all Members whose exports contributed
to that damage and concluded therefore that the Panel's interpretation of this broader issuewas of no legal effect.
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report, as modified by the
Appellate Body Report, on 5 November 2001.
58. WT/DS194 – United States – Measures Tr eating Export Restraints As Subsidies
Request by Canada.  On 19 May 2000, Canada requested consultations with the US regarding
certain US measures that treat a restraint on exports of a product as a subsidy to other
products made using or incorporating the restricted product if the domestic price of the
restricted product is affected by the restraint.  The measures at issue included provisions of
the Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act (URAA) (H.R. 5110, H.R. Doc. 316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong., 2d Sess., 656, inparticular at 925-926 (1994)) and the Explanati on of the Final Rules, US Department of
Commerce, Countervailing Duties, Final Rule (63 Federal Register 65,348 at 65,349-51
(Nov. 25, 1998)) interpreting section 771(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 USC. § 1677(5)), as
amended by the URAA.  Canada's claims were as follows:
• Canada considered that these measures were inconsistent with US obligations under
Articles 1.1, 10, (as well as Articles 11, 17 and 19, as they relate to the requirements ofArticle 10), and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement because these measures provide that the US
will impose countervailing duties against practices that are not subsidies within the
meaning of Article 1.1 of the SCM Agreement.
• Canada also considered that the US has fail ed to ensure that its laws, regulations and
administrative procedures are in conformity with its WTO obligations as required by
Article 32.5 of the SCM Agreement and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 109
On 24 July 2000, Canada requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 4 August
2000, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request to establish
a panel by Canada, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 11 September 2000.
Australia, the EC and India reserved their th ird-party rights.  On 23 October 2000, the Panel
was composed.  The Panel circulated its report on 29 June 2001.  The Panel concluded that:
• an export restraint as defined in this dispute cannot constitute government-entrusted or
government-directed provision of goods in the sense of subparagraph (iv) and hence doesnot constitute a financial contribution in the sense of Article 1.1(a) of the
SCM Agreement; and
• Section 771(5)(B)(iii) read in light of the SAA and the Preamble to the US CVD
Regulations is not inconsistent with Article 1.1 of the SCM Agreement by "requir[ing]
the imposition of countervailing duties against practices that are not subsidies within themeaning of Article 1.1".
• with respect to those of Canada's claims not addressed above, the Panel concluded that in
light of considerations of judicial economy, it was neither necessary nor appropriate to
make findings thereon.  The Panel therefore made no recommendations with respect to
the US' obligations under the SCM and WTO Agreements.
The DSB adopted the Panel Report on 23 August 2001.
59. WT/DS202 – United States – Definitive Sa feguard Measures on Imports of Circular
Welded Carbon Quality Line Pipe
Complaint by Korea.  On 13 June 2000, Korea requested consultations with the United States
in respect of concerns the definitive safeguard measure imposed by the United States on
imports of circular welded carbon quality line pipe (line pipe).  Korea noted that on
18 February 2000 the United States proclaimed a definitive safeguard measure on imports of
line pipe (subheadings 7306.10.10 and 7306.10.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the
United States).  In that proclamation, the United States announced that the proposed date ofintroduction of the measure was 1 March 2000 and that the measure was expected to remain
in effect for 3 years and 1 day.  Korea considered that the US procedures and determinations
that led to the imposition of the safeguard measure as well as the measure itself contravened
various provisions contained in the Safeguards  Agreement and the GATT 1994.  In particular,
Korea considers that the measure is inconsistent with the United States' obligations underArticles 2, 3, 4, 5, 11 and 12 of the Safeguards Agreement; and Articles I, XIII and XIX of
the GATT 1994.
Further to Korea's request, the DSB established a panel at its meeting of 23 October 2000.
Australia, Canada, EC, Japan and Mexico reserved their third-party rights.  On 12 January
2001, Korea requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the Panel.  On
22 January 2001, the Panel was composed.
On 29 October 2001, the Panel circulated its report to the Members.  The Panel concluded
that the US line pipe measure was imposed inconsistently with certain provisions of GATT
1994 and/or the Safeguards Agreement, in particular:
• the line pipe measure is not consistent with the general rule contained in the chapeau of
Article XIII:2 because it has been applied without respecting traditional trade patterns;
• the line pipe measure is not consistent with Article XIII2:(a) because it has been applied
without fixing the total amount of imports permitted at the lower tariff rate;WT/DS/OV/7
Page 110
• the US acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 4.2(c) by failing to include in its
published report a finding or reasoned conclusion either (i) that increased imports havecaused serious injury, or (ii) that increased imports are threatening to cause serious injury;
• the US acted inconsistently with Article 4.2(b) by failing to establish a causal link
between the increased imports and the serious injury, or threat thereof;
• the US has not complied with its obligations under Article 9.1 by applying the measure to
developing countries whose imports do not exceed the individual and collective
thresholds in that provision;
• the US acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article XIX by failing to
demonstrate the existence of unforeseen developments prior to the application of the linepipe measure;
• the US has acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 12.3 by failing to
provide an adequate opportunity for prior consultations with Members having asubstantial interest as exporters of line pipe;
• the US has acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 8.1 to endeavour to
maintain a substantially equivalent level of concessions and other obligations;
All other claims by Korea were rejected by the Panel.  The Panel also declined Korea's
request for the Panel to find that the US safeguard measure should be lifted immediately and
the ITC safeguard investigation on line pipe terminated.
On 6 November 2001, the US notified its decision to appeal certain findings of law and legal
interpretations contained in the Panel Report.  However, on 13 November 2001, it withdrew
its notice of appeal.  Later, on 19 November 2001, the US notified its decision to re-file its
appeal to the Appellate Body.  On 18 January 2002, the Appellate Body informed the DSB
that there would be a delay in the circulation of the report.  Accordingly, the Appellate Body
informed that the report would be circulated to the Members no later than 15 February 2002.
On 15 February 2002, the Appellate Body circulated its report to the Members.  TheAppellate Body:
• upheld, albeit for different reasons, the Panel's finding, in paragraph 8.1(7) of the Panel
Report, that the United States acted inconsistently with its obligation under Article 12.3of the Agreement on Safeguards  by failing to provide an adequate opportunity for prior
consultations with Korea, a Member having a substantial interest in exports of line pipe;
• upheld the Panel's finding, in paragraph 8.1(8) of the Panel Report, that the United States
acted inconsistently with its obligation under Article 8.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards
to endeavour to maintain a substantially equivalent level of concessions and other
obligations;
• upheld the Panel's finding, in paragraph 8.1(5) of the Panel Report, that the United States
did not comply with its obligation under Article 9.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards  that
safeguard measures shall not be applied against a product originating in a developingcountry Member as long as its imports do not exceed the individual and collective
thresholds in that provision;
• reversed the Panel's finding, in paragraph 8.1(3) of the Panel Report, that the United
States acted inconsistently with its obligations under Articles 3.1 and 4.2(c) of theAgreement on Safeguards  by failing to include in its published report a finding or
reasoned conclusion either (1) that increased imports have caused serious injury, or (2)that increased imports are threatening to cause serious injury;
• reversed the Panel's finding, in paragraph 8.2(9) of the Panel Report, that the United
States did not violate its obligations under Articles 2 and 4 of the Agreement on
Safeguards by exempting Canada and Mexico from the line pipe measure;
• modified the Panel's finding, in paragraph 8.2(1)) of the Panel Report, that the United
States did not violate its obligations under Articles I, XIII:1 and XIX of GATT 1994 byWT/DS/OV/7
Page 111
exempting Canada and Mexico from the line pipe measures, declaring it moot and as
having no legal effect;
• upheld the Panel's finding, in paragraph 8.1(4) of the Panel Report, that the United States
acted inconsistently with its obligation under Article 4.2(b) of the Agreement on
Safeguards  by failing to establish a causal link between the increased imports and the
serious injury or threat thereof;
• upheld the Panel's finding, in paragraph 7.81 of the Panel Report, that the United States
was not required by Article 5.1, first sentence, of the Agreement on Safeguards  to
demonstrate, at the time of imposition, that the line pipe measure was necessary to
prevent or remedy serious injury and to facilitate adjustment;
• reversed the Panel's finding, in paragraph 8.2(2) of the Panel Report, that Korea failed to
make a prima facie case that the United States violated its obligation under Article 5.1,
first sentence, of the Agreement on Safeguards , by imposing a measure that exceeds what
is "necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury and to facilitate adjustment", and finds
that the United States applied the line pipe measure beyond the "extent necessary to
prevent or remedy serious injury and to facilitate adjustment".
On 8 March 2002, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report, as
modified by the Appellate Body Report.
60. WT/DS222 – Canada – Export Credits and Loan Guarantees for Regional Aircraft
Complaint by Brazil.  On 22 January 2001, Brazil requested consultations with Canada
concerning subsidies which are allegedly being granted to  Canada's regional aircraft industry.
Brazil's claims are as follows:
• Export credits, within the meaning of Item (k) of Annex I to the SCM Agreement, are
being provided to Canada's regional aircraft industry by the Export DevelopmentCorporation (EDC) and the Canada Account.
• Loan guarantees, within the meaning of Item (j) of Annex I to the SCM Agreement, are
being provided by EDC, Industry Canada, and the Province of Quebec, to support exports
of Canada's regional aircraft industry.
• Brazil takes the view that all of the above-mentioned measures are subsidies, within the
meaning of Article 1 of the SCM Agreement, since they are financial contributions that
confer a benefit.
• According to Brazil, they are also contingent, in law or in fact, upon export, and
constitute, therefore, a violation of Article 3 of the SCM Agreement.
Further to Brazil's request, the DSB established a panel at its meeting of 12 March 2001.
Australia, the EC, India and the US reserved their third party rights.  On 7 May 2001, Brazilrequested the Director-General to determine the composition of the Panel.  On 11 May 2001,
the Panel was composed.
On 9 August 2001, the Panel informed the DSB that it would not be possible to complete its
work within the 3 months deadline from its com position.  The panel informed that it expected
to complete its work by October 2001.  On 28 January 2002, the Panel circulated its report to
the Members.  The Panel:
• rejected Brazil's claims that the EDC Corporate Account, Canada Account, the IQ
programmes "as such" constitute prohibited export subsidies contrary to Article 3.1(a) ofthe SCM Agreement;WT/DS/OV/7
Page 112
• rejected Brazil's claim that the EDC Corporate Account, Canada Account and the IQ
programmes "as applied" constitute prohibited export subsidies contrary to Article 3.1(a)of the SCM Agreement;
• upheld Brazil's claim that the EDC Canada Account financing to Air Wisconsin, to Air
Nostrum and to Comair constitutes a prohibited export subsidy contrary to Article 3.1(a)of the SCM Agreement;
• rejected Brazil's claim that the EDC Corporate Account financing to ASA, ACA, Kendell
Air Nostrum and Comair in December 1996, March 1997 and March 1998 constitutes a
prohibited export subsidy contrary to Article 3.1(a) of the SCM Agreement;
• rejected Brazil's claim that IQ equity guarantees to ACA, Air Littoral, Midway, Mesa Air
group, Air Nostrum and Air Wisconsin constitute prohibited export subsidies contrary to
Article 3.1(a) of the SCM Agreement; and
• rejected Brazil's claim that IQ loan guarantees to Mesa Air Group and Air Wisconsin
constitute prohibited export subsidies contrary to Article 3.1(a) of the SCM Agreement.
The Panel also recommended that Canada withdraw the subsidies identified within 90 days.
At its meeting on 19 February 2002, the DSB adopted the panel report.
B. APPELLATE BODY AND PANEL COMPLIANCE REPORTS (ARTICLE 21.5)
ADOPTED
1. WT/DS18/RW – Australia - Measures Affecting the Importation of Salmon
(See WT/DS18 for precedents)  Canada made  a request, pursuant to DSU Article 21.5, for
determination by the original panel of whether the measures taken by Australia in implementing
the recommendations of the DSB were WTO-cons istent..  At its meeting of 28 July 1999, the
DSB agreed to Canada's request and referred the matter for determination of the WTO-
consistency of the implementing measures to th e original panel.  The EC, Norway and the US
reserved their third-party rights.  The DSB also  referred the Canadian request for suspension of
concessions to arbitration in view of Australia' s challenge of the level of nullification suffered
by Canada.  On 7 September 1999, the Complia nce Panel and Arbitrator were composed.
On 18 February 2000, the report of the DSU Article  21.5 panel was circulated to Members.  The
panel found that:
• due to delays in the entry into force of several implementing measures which extended
beyond the reasonable period of time within which Australia had to implement the DSB
recommendations, no measures to comply existe d in the sense of Article 21.5 of the DSU in
respect of a number of covered products and dur ing specific periods of time.  As a result,
during those periods, Australia failed to bring its measure into conformity with the SPSAgreement in the sense referred to in Article 22.6 of the DSU.
• Australia, by requiring that only salmon produc t that is "consumer-ready" as specifically
defined can be imported into Australia and released from quarantine, was maintaining
sanitary measures that were not "based on" a risk assessment, which was contrary to
Articles 5.1 and 2.2 of the SPS Agreement.  The panel also considered the same
requirement to be in violation of Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement.
• Finally, the panel found that Australia violated Articles 5.1 and 2.2 of the SPS Agreement
as a result of a measure enacted by the Gove rnment of Tasmania that effectively prohibits
the importation of certain Canadian salmon pr oduct into most parts of Tasmania without
being based on a risk assessment and without sufficient scientific evidence.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 113
At its meeting on 20 March 2000, the DSB adopted the report of the compliance panel.
2. WT/DS27/RW – European Communities - Re gime for the Importation, Sale and
Distribution of Bananas
(See WT/DS27 for precedents)  On 15 December 1998, the EC requested the establishment of
a panel under Article 21.5 to determine that the implementing measures of the EC must be
presumed to conform to WTO rules unless challenged in accordance with DSU procedures.
On 18 December 1998, Ecuador requested the re-establishment of the original panel to
examine whether the EC measures to implement the recommendations of the DSB are WTO-
consistent.  At its meeting on 12 January 1999, the DSB agreed to reconvene the original
panel, pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU, to examine both Ecuador's and the EC's requests.
Jamaica, Nicaragua, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cô te d'Ivoire, Dominican Republic, Dominica,
St. Lucia, Mauritius, St. Vincent, indicated their interest to join as third parties in both
requests, while Ecuador and India indicated their third-party interest only in the EC request.
On 18 January 1999, the Compliance Panels were composed.  The two Compliance Panel
Reports were circulated on 12 April 1999.  They were adopted by the DSB at its meeting on
6 May 1999.
In the panel requested by the EC, pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU, the panel found that,
because a challenge had actually been made by Ecuador regarding the WTO-consistency of
the EC measures taken in implementation of the DSB recommendations, it was unable to
agree with the EC that the EC must be presumed to be in compliance with therecommendations of the DSB.
In the panel requested by Ecuador, pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU, the panel found that
the implementation measures taken by the EC in compliance with the recommendations of the
DSB were not fully compatible with the EC's WTO obligations. The report of the compliancepanel requested by Ecuador, under Article 21.5 of the DSU, was adopted by the DSB on
6 May 1999.
3. WT/DS46/RW and WT/DS46/RW/2 – Braz il - Export Financing Programme for
Aircraft
(See WT/DS46 for precedents)  On 23 November  1999, Canada requested the establishment of
a panel under Article 21.5 of the DSU, requesting that the panel find that Brazil had not taken
measures to comply fully with the rulings a nd recommendations of the DSB.  Canada and
Brazil reached an agreement concerning the proce dures to be applicable pursuant to Articles 21
and 22 of the DSU and Article 4 of the Subsidies Agreement.  At its meeting on 9 December
1999, the DSB agreed to reconvene the original  panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU.
Australia, the EC and the US reserved their third-party rights.  On 17 December 1999, the
compliance panel was composed.
The report of the compliance panel was circulated to Members on 9 May 2000.  The panel
found that Brazil's measures to comply with th e recommendations and rulings of the DSB either
did not exist or were not consistent with the S ubsidies Agreement.  In reaching this conclusion,
the panel notably rejected Brazil's defence that PROEX payments were permitted under item (k)
of Annex I of the Subsidies Agreement, adding  that, if a WTO Member encountered an export
credit that had been provided on terms that it could not meet consistent with the SCM
Agreement, the proper response was to challenge that export credit in WTO dispute settlement.
On 22 May 2000, Brazil notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the review panel.  The report of the Appellate Body was circulated
to Members on 9 May 2000.  The Appellate Body  upheld the review panel's conclusion thatWT/DS/OV/7
Page 114
Brazil has failed to implement the recommenda tion of the DSB because of the continued
issuance by Brazil of NTN-I bonds, after 18 Nove mber 1999, pursuant to letters of commitment
issued before 18 November 1999.  The Appellate Body also upheld the review panel's findings
that payments made under the revised PROEX ar e prohibited by Article 3 of the Subsidies
Agreement and are not justified under item (k) of the Illustrative List of the same Agreement.The Appellate Body therefore upheld the review  panel's conclusion that Brazil has failed to
implement the recommendations of the DSB.  The DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and
the panel report, as modified by the Appellate  Body report, at its meeting on 4 August 2000.
On 22 January 2001, Canada requested the DSB to refer the matter again to the original panel,
pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. At its m eeting of 16 February 2001, the DSB referred the
matter to the original panel. Australia, the EC and Korea reserved their third-party rights.  The
Panel circulated its report on 26 July 2001.  The Panel concluded as follows:
• It has not been established that PROEX III as  such was inconsistent with Article 3.1(a) of
the SCM Agreement;
• PROEX III as such is justified under the second paragraph of item (k) of the Illustrative List
of Export Subsidies of Anne x I of the SCM Agreement;
• PROEX III cannot be justified under para graph 1 of the above-mentioned item.
At its meeting on 23 August 2001, the DSB adopted  the Panel Report on this second recourse to
Article 21.5 of the DSU.
4. WT/DS58/RW – United States - Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp
Products
(See WT/DS58 for precedents) On the grounds that the US had not implemented
appropriately the recommendations of the DSB, on 12 October 2000, Malaysia requested that
the matter be referred to the original panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU.  In particular,
Malaysia considered that by not lifting the import prohibition and not taking the necessary
measures to allow the importation of certain shrimp and shrimp products in an unrestrictivemanner, the United States had failed to comp ly with the recommendations and rulings of the
DSB.  At its meeting of 23 October 2000, the DSB referred the matter to the original panel
pursuant to Article 21.5 DSU. Australia, Cana da, the EC, Ecuador, India, Japan, Mexico,
Pakistan, Thailand and Hong Kong, China reserved their third-party rights.  On 8 November
2000, the Panel was composed.
The Panel circulated its report on 15 June 2001. The Panel concluded that:
• the measure adopted by the US in order to comply with the recommendations and rulings
of the DSB violated Article XI.1 of the GATT 1994;
• in light of the recommendations and rulings of the DSB, Section 609 of Public Law 101-
162, as implemented by the Revised Guidelines of 8 July 1999 and as applied so far by
the US authorities, was justified under Article XX of the GATT 1994 as long as the
conditions stated in the findings of this Report, in particular the ongoing serious good
faith efforts to reach a multilateral agreement, remain satisfied.
• should any one of the conditions referred above cease to be met in the future, the
recommendations of the DSB may no longer be complied with. In such a case, any
complaining party in the original case may be entitled to have further recourse to
Article 21.5 of the DSU.
On 23 July 2001, Malaysia notified the DSB its intention to appeal the above report.  In
particular, Malaysia sought review by the Appe llate Body of the Panel's finding that the USWT/DS/OV/7
Page 115
measure at issue does not constitute unjustifiable or arbitrary discrimination between
countries where the same conditions prevail and that it is therefore within the scope of the
measures permitted under Article XX of the GA TT 1994 as long as the conditions stated in
the findings of the Panel Report, in particular the ongoing serious good faith efforts to reach a
multilateral agreement, remain satisfied.
On 19 September, the Appellate Body informed the DSB of a delay in the circulation of its
Report in this appeal.  The Report was circulated to the Members on 22 October 2001.  The
Appellate Body upheld the contested findings of the Panel:  Since it had upheld the Panel's
findings that the US measure was now applied in a manner that met the requirements of
Article XX of the GATT 1994, the Appellate Body refrained from making any
recommendations.  On 21 November 2001, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report andthe Panel Report, as upheld by the Appellate Body Report.
5. WT/DS70/RW – Canada - Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft
(See WT/DS70 for precedents)  On 23 November  1999, Brazil requested the establishment of a
panel under Article 21.5 because it believed that Canada had not taken measures to comply fullywith the rulings and recommendations of the DSB.  Brazil and Canada reached an agreement
concerning the procedures to be applicable  pursuant to Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU and
Article 4 of the Subsidies Agreement.  At its meeting on 9 December 1999, the DSB agreed to
reconvene the original panel pursuant to Article  21.5 of the DSU.  Australia, the EC and the US
reserved their third-party rights.  On 17 December 1999, the Compliance Panel was composed.
The report of the compliance panel was circulated to Members on 9 May 2000.  The panel
found:
(i) that Canada had implemented the recomm endation of the DSB th at Canada withdraw
Technology Partnership Canada (TPC) assistance to the Canadian regional aircraft
industry within 90 days,
(ii) but that Canada had failed to implemen t the recommendation that it withdraw the
Canada Account assistance to the Canadian regional aircraft industry within 90 days.
With regard to the latter finding, the panel considered that the measures taken by Canada were
not sufficient to ensure that future Canada Account transactions in the Canadian regional
aircraft sector would be in conformity with  the interest rate provisions of the OECD
Arrangement and would thereby qualify for the safe haven in item (k) of Annex I of the
Subsidies Agreement.  The panel therefore conc luded that Canada's measures did not ensure
that such Canada Account transactions would not be prohibited export subsidies.
On 22 May 2000, Brazil notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the compliance pane l.  The report of the Appellate Body was
circulated to Members on 9 May 2000.  The Appella te Body found that the review panel erred
in declining to examine one of Brazil's argument s to the effect that the revised TPC programme
is inconsistent with Article 3.1(a) of the Subs idies Agreement.  The Appellate Body also found,
however, that Brazil had failed to establish that the revised TPC programme is inconsistent with
Article 3.1(a) of the Subsidies Agreement and, acco rdingly, that Brazil had failed to establish
that Canada has not implemented the recomme ndations of the DSB.  The DSB adopted the
Appellate Body report and the panel report, as m odified by the Appellate Body report, at its
meeting on 4 August 2000.  Canada stated its intention to implement the recommendations of
the DSB in respect of the Canada Account Programme.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 116
6. WT/DS99/RW – United States – Anti-D umping Duty on Dynamic Random Access
Memory Semiconductors (DRAMS) of One Megabit or Above from Korea
(See WT/DS99 for precedents)  On 9 March 2000, Korea informed the DSB that it believed that
the measures taken by the United States to comp ly with the rulings and recommendations of the
DSB were not consistent with the Anti-Du mping Agreement and Article X:1 of GATT 1994.
Korea therefore requested that this matter be re ferred to the original panel pursuant to Article
21.5 of the DSU.  On 6 April 2000, Korea submitted a new request to the effect that the matter
be referred to the original panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU.  At its meeting on 25 April
2000, the DSB agreed to reconvene the original pa nel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU.  The
EC reserved its reserved its third-party rights.  On 11 May 2000, the Compliance Panel was
composed.
On 19 September 2000, Korea requested the Panel to suspend its work, including the issuance
of the interim report, "until further notification" pursuant to Article 12.12 of the DSU.  The
Panel, in a letter sent to the parties on 21 September 2000, agreed to this request. On 20
October 2000, the parties notified the DSB of a mutually satisfactory solution to the matter,
involving the revocation of the antidumping order at issue as the result of a five-year "sunset"review by the US Department of Commerce.
7. WT/DS103/RW and WT/D S113/RW – Canada - Measures Affecting the Importation of
Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products
(See WT/DS103 for precedents).  On 16 February 2001, the US and New Zealand requested
the DSB to refer the problems with the implemen tation of the original report to the original
panel pursuant to Article 21.5 DSU. At its meeting of 1 March 2001, the DSB referred the
matter to the original panel.  Australia, the EC and Mexico reserved their third party rights.
On 12 April 2001, the compliance Panel was composed.
The compliance Panel circulated its report on 11 July 2001.  It concluded that Canada,
through the CEM scheme and the continued operation of Special Milk Class 5(d), has acted
inconsistently with its obligations under Articles 3.3 and 8 of the Agreement on Agriculture,
by providing export subsidies within the meaning of Article 9.1(c) of the Agreement on
Agriculture in excess of its quantity commitment levels specified in its Schedule for exports
of cheese, for the marketing year 2000/2001.
On 4 September 2001, Canada appealed the compliance Panel report before the Appellate
Body.  In particular, Canada appealed the Panel's finding that the Canadian measures in
question constitute an export subsidy within the meaning of Article 9.1(c)of the Agreement
on Agriculture.  Canada considered that the Panel's finding that commercial export sales
constitute payments that are financed by virtue of governmental action is based on erroneousfindings on issues of law and on related legal in terpretations with respect to the interpretation
and application of the said Article 9.1(c).
The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members on 3 December 2001.  The
Appellate Body reversed the compliance Panel's findings to the effect that the supply of CEMby domestic milk producers to domestic dairy processors involves "payments" on the export
of milk "that are financed by virtue of governmental action" under Article 9.1(c) of the
 Agreement on Agriculture.  The Appellate Body  concluded that, in the light of the factual
findings made by the Panel and the uncontested facts in the Panel record, it was unable to
complete the analysis of the claims made by New Zealand and the United States underArticles 9.1(c) or 10.1 of the  Agreement on Agriculture, or the claim made by the
United States under Article 3.1 of the  SCM Agreement.  At its meeting on 18 DecemberWT/DS/OV/7
Page 117
2001, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report, as reversed by the
Appellate Body Report.
8. WT/DS108/RW – United States  – Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations"
(See WT/DS108 for precedents)  On 7 D ecember 2000, the EC notified the DSB that
consultations had failed to settle the dispute a nd that it was requesting the establishment of a
panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU.  At its meeting of 20 December 2000, the DSB
agreed to refer the matter to the original panel.  Australia, Canada, India, Jamaica and Japan
reserved their third party rights.  On 5 January 2001, the Panel was composed.  On
21 December 2000, pursuant to an agreement between the parties, the US and the EC jointly
requested the Article 22.6 DSU arbitrator to suspend the arbitration proceeding until adoption
of the panel report or, if there is an appeal, adoption of the Appellate Body report.  Thearbitration was accordingly suspended.
On 20 August 2001, the compliance panel report was circulated to the Members.  The Panel
concluded that the FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act of 2000 (the
amended FSC legislation) was still inconsistent with Articles 3.1(a) and 3.2 of the SCMAgreement, with 10.1 and 8 of the Agreement on  Agriculture and with Article III:4 of the
GATT 1994.
On 15 October 2001, the US notified its decision to appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the panel report.  On 14 January 2002, the Appellate Bodycirculated its Report to the Members.  The Appellate Body:
• upheld the Panel's findings that the US acted inconsistently with its obligations under the
SCM Agreement, the Agreement on Agriculture, and the GATT 1994 through the FSCamended legislation, a measure taken by the United States to implement the recommendations
and rulings made by the DSB in the original proceedings in the  United States – FSC  dispute;
• with respect to third party rights, found that the Panel erred in its interpretation of Article 10.3
of the DSU in declining to rule that  all  written submissions of the parties filed prior to the
first meeting of the Panel must be provided to the third parties.
At its meeting on 29 January 2002, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel
Report, as upheld by the Appellate Body Report.
9. WT/DS126/RW – Australia – Subsidies Provided to Producers and Exporters of
Automotive Leather
(See WT/DS126 for precedents)  On 4 October 1999, the United States informed the DSB that it
believed that the measures taken by Australia to comply with the rulings and recommendations
of the DSB were not consistent with the Subsidies Agreement and the DSU, and thereforerequested that the original panel be reconvened  pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU.  At its
meeting on 14 October 1999, the DSB agreed to reconvene the original panel pursuant to
Article 21.5 of the DSU.  The EC and Mexico rese rved their third-party rights.  On 1 November
1999, the Compliance Panel was composed.
The report of the panel was circulated to Members on 21 January 2000.  The panel determined
that Australia had failed to comply with th e DSB's recommendations within 90 days.  The DSB
adopted the review panel's report on 11 February 2000.  On 24 July 2000, the parties notified
the DSB that they had reached a mutually satis factory solution in regard to implementation of
the findings of the review panel.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 118
10. WT/DS132/RW – Mexico - Anti -Dumping Investigation of High-Fructose Corn Syrup
(HFCS) from the United States
On 12 October 2000, the US requested that the DSB refer the matter to the original panel,
pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU, in orde r to establish whether Mexico had correctly
implemented the DSB's recommendations.  At its meeting of 23 October 2000, the DSBreferred the matter to the original panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU.  The EC,
Jamaica and Mauritius reserved their third-party rights. The US and Mexico informed the
DSB that they were discussing mutually agreeable procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the
DSU in relation to this matter.  On 13 November 2000, the Panel was composed.
The Article 21.5 Panel circulated its report on 22 June 2001.  The Panel concluded that
Mexico's imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of HFCS from the US onthe basis of the SECOFI redetermination was inconsistent with the requirements of the
AD Agreement in that Mexico's inadequate consideration of the impact of dumped imports on
the domestic industry, and its inadequate consideration of the potential effect of the alleged
restraint agreement in its determination of likelihood of substantially increased importation,
are not consistent with the provisions of Articles 3.1, 3.4, 3.7 and 3.7(i) of the AD Agreement.The Panel therefore considered that Mexico has failed to implement the recommendation of
the original Panel and the DSU to bring its measure into conformity with its obligations under
the AD Agreement.
On 24 July 2001, Mexico appealed the above Panel report.  In particular, Mexico requested
the Appellate Body to examine and reverse the Panel's conclusions that Mexico's imposition
of definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of HFCS from the United States, on the basis of
SECOFI's redetermination, was inconsistent with the requirements of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement, in that
• Mexico's inadequate consideration of the impact of dumped imports on the domestic
industry, and its inadequate consideration of the potential effect of the alleged restraintagreement in its determination of likelihood of substantially increased importation, are
not consistent with the provisions of Article 3.1, 3.4, 3.7 and 3.7(i) of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement, and
• Mexico therefore failed to implement the recommendation of the original Panel and of the
DSB to bring its measure into conformity with its obligations under the Anti-Dumping
Agreement;
• and that it has nullified or impaired benefits accruing to the United States under that
Agreement.
According to Mexico, these conclusions are based on erroneous matters of law and legal
interpretations of various provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the DSU.
On 20 September 2001, the Appellate Body informed that the issuance of the report would be
delayed.  The Report was circulated to the Members on 22 October 2001.  The Appellate
Body upheld the contested findings of the Panel and therefore recommended the DSB to
request Mexico to bring its anti-dumping measure into conformity with its obligations under
that Agreement.  On 21 November 2001, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and the
Panel Report, as upheld by the Appellate Body Report.
VI. IMPLEMENTATION STATUS OF ADOPTED REPORTS
For descriptions of the reports see Section V:   Completed Panel and Appellate Body Review.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 119
1. WT/DS2 and WT/DS4 – United States - St andards for Reformulated and Conventional
Gasoline
Complaints by Venezuela and Brazil.  The US announced implementation of the
recommendations of the DSB as of 19 August  1997, at the end of the 15 month reasonable
period of time.
2. WT/DS8, WT/DS10 and WT/DS11 – Japa n - Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages
Complaints by the European Communities, Canada and the United States.  On 24 December
1996, the US, pursuant to Article 21(3)(c) of the DSU applied for binding arbitration to
determine the reasonable period of time for implementation by Japan of the recommendations
of the Appellate Body.
The Arbitrator's report was circulated to members on 14 February 1997. The Arbitrator found
the reasonable period for implementation of the recommendations to be 15 months from the
date of adoption of the reports i.e. it expired on 1 February 1998.  Japan presented modalities
for implementation which were accepted by the complainants.
3. WT/DS18 – Australia - Measures Affe cting the Importation of Salmon
Complaint by Canada.  At the DSB meeting on 25 November 1998, Australia informed the
DSB that it was committed to implementing the recommendations of the DSB and was looking
forward to discussing w ith the complainants the question of implementation.
On 24 December 1998, Canada requested arbitrati on, pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, to
determine the reasonable period of time for implementation of the recommendations of the
DSB.  The Arbitrator decided that the reas onable period of time for implementation was 8
months i.e. it expired on 6 July 1999.  The report of the Arbitrator was circulated to Members
on 23 February 1999.  On 28 July 1999, Canada made a request to the DSB, pursuant to Article22.2 of the DSU, for authorization to suspend concessions to Australia for its non-compliance
with the recommendations of the DSB in this matter.  Canada simultaneously made a request,
pursuant to DSU Article 21.5, for determination by  the original panel of whether the measures
taken by Australia in implementing the recommendations of the DSB were WTO-consistent.
Australia informed the DSB that in the event that the DSB approved Canada's request under
22.2, it wished to request, pursuant to DSU 22.6, fo r arbitration on the level of nullification
suffered by Canada.  The DSB agreed to Canada's request and referred the matter fordetermination of the WTO-consistency of the impl ementing measures to the original panel.  The
EC, Norway and the US reserved their third-pa rty rights.  The DSB also referred the Canadian
request for suspension of concessions to arbitrati on in view of Australia's challenge of the level
of nullification suffered by Canada.  On 7 September 1999, the Compliance Panel and
Arbitrator were composed.  On 18 February 2000, the report of the DSU Article 21.5 panel was
circulated to Members.  At its meeting on 20 March 2000, the DSB adopted the report of the
compliance panel.
4. WT/DS24 – United States - Restrictions on Imports of Cotton and Man-Made Fibre
Underwear
Complaint by Costa Rica.  At the meeting of the DSB on 10 April 1997, the US informed the
meeting that the measure which had been the subject of this dispute had expired on 27 March
1997 and had not been renewed, effectively mean ing that the US had immediately complied
with the recommendations of the DSB.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 120
5. WT/DS26 and WT/DS48 – European Communiti es - Measures Affecting Meat and Meat
Products (Hormones)
Complaints by the United States and Canada. On 8 April 1998, the respondent requested that
the "reasonable period of time" for implementati on of the recommendations and rulings of the
DSB be determined by binding arbitration, pur suant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU.  The
Arbitrator found the reasonable period of time for implementation to be 15 months from the
date of adoption (i.e. 15 mont hs from 13 February 1998).  The report of the Arbitrator was
circulated to Members on 29 May 1998.
The period for implementation was set by arbitra tion at 15 months from the date of the adoption
of the reports i.e. it expired on 13 May 1999.  The EC undertook to comply with the
recommendations of the DSB within the im plementation period.  At the DSB meeting on
28 April 1999, the EC informed the DSB that it w ould consider offering compensation in view
of the likelihood that it may not be able to comp ly with the recommendations and rulings of the
DSB by the deadline of 13 May 1999.
On 3 June 1999, the United States and Canada, pu rsuant to Article 22.2 of the DSU, requested
authorization from the DSB for the suspension of concessions to the EC in the amount of
US$202 million and Can.$75 million, respectively.  The EC, pursuant to Article 22.6 of the
DSU, requested arbitration on the level of susp ension of concessions requested by the United
States and Canada.  The DSB referred the issue of the level of suspension to the original panel
for arbitration.
The arbitrators determined the level of nullificat ion suffered by the United States to be equal to
US$116.8 million, and the level of nullification suffered by Canada to be equal to
CDN$11.3 million.  The report of the arbitrators was circulated to Members on 12 July 1999.
At its meeting on 26 July 1999, the DSB authorized  the suspension of concessions to the EC by
the United States and Canada in the respective amounts determined by the arbitrators as being
equivalent to the level of nullification suffered by them.
6. WT/DS27 – European Communities - Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution
of Bananas
Complaints by Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and the United States.
On 17 November 1997, the complainants requested that the "reasonable period of time" for
implementation of the recommendations and rulin gs of the DSB be determined by binding
arbitration, pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the DS U.  The Arbitrator f ound the reasonable period
of time for implementation to be 15 months and 1 week from the date of the adoption of the
reports i.e. it expired on 1 January 1999.  The report of the Arbitrator was circulated toMembers on 7 January 1998.
On 18 August 1998, further the EC's revision of their legislation, the complainants requested
consultations with the EC (without prejudice to their rights under Article 21.5), for the
resolution of the disagreement between them over the WTO-consistency of measuresintroduced by the EC in purported compliance with the recommendations and rulings of the
Panel and Appellate Body.  At the DSB meeting on 25 November 1998, the EC announced
that it had adopted the second Regulation to implement the recommendations of the DSB, and
that the new system will be fully operational from 1 January 1999.  On 15 December 1998,
the EC requested the establishment of a panel under Article 21.5 to determine that theimplementing measures of the EC must be presumed to conform to WTO rules unless
challenged in accordance with DSU procedures.  On 18 December 1998, Ecuador requested
the re-establishment of the original panel, under Article 21.5, to examine whether the ECWT/DS/OV/7
Page 121
measures to implement the recommendations of the DSB are WTO-consistent.  At its meeting
on 12 January 1999, the DSB agreed to reconvene the original panel, pursuant to Article 21.5
of the DSU, to examine both Ecuador's and the EC's requests.
On 14 January 1999, the United States, pursuant to Article 22.2 of the DSU, requested
authorization from the DSB for suspension of  concessions to the EC in an amount of
US$520 million.  At the DSB meeting on 29 January 1999, the EC, pursuant to Article 22.6 of
the DSU, requested arbitration on the level of suspension of concessions requested by the
United States.  The DSB referred the issue of the level of suspension to the original panel for
arbitration.  Pursuant to Article 22.6 of the DSU, the request for the suspension of
concessions by the United States was deferred by the DSB until the determination, through
the arbitration, of the appropriate level for the suspension of concessions.
In the arbitration under Article 22.6 of the DSU, necessitated by the EC's challenge to the
level of suspension sought by the United States (US$520 million), the arbitrators found that
the level of suspension sought by the United States was not equivalent to the level of
nullification and impairment suffered as a result of the EC's new banana regime not beingfully compatible with the WTO.  The arbi trators accordingly determined the level of
nullification suffered by the United States to be equal to US$191.4 million.  The arbitrator's
report and the reports of the panels were issued to the parties on 6 April 1999, and circulated
to Members on 9 and 12 April 1999 respectively.  On 9 April 1999, the United States,
pursuant to Article 22.7 of the DSU, requested that the DSB authorize suspension ofconcessions to the EC equivalent to the level of nullification and impairment, i.e. US$191.4
million.  On 19 April 1999, the DSB authorized the United States to suspend concessions to
the EC as requested.
The report of the compliance panel requested by Ecuador, under Article 21.5 of the DSU, was
adopted by the DSB on 6 May 1999.  On 8 November 1999, Ecuador requested authorization
from the DSB to suspend the application to the EC of concessions or other related obligations
under the TRIPS Agreement, GATS and GATT 1994, pursuant to Article 22.2 of the DSU, in
an amount of US$450 million.  At the DSB meeting on 19 November 1999, the EC, pursuant
to Article 22.6 of the DSU, requested arbitration on the level of suspension of concessions
requested by Ecuador.  The DSB referred the is sue of the level of suspension to the original
panel for arbitration.  Pursuant to Article 22.6 of the DSU, the request for the suspension ofconcessions by Ecuador was deferred by the DSB until the determination, through the
arbitration, of the appropriate level for the suspension of concessions.
Also at the DSB meeting on 19 November 1999, the EC informed the DSB of its proposal for
reform of the banana regime, which envisages a two-stage process, comprising a tariff ratequota system for several years.  This system should then be replaced by a tariff only system
no later than 1 January 2006.  The proposal includes a decision to continue discussions with
interested parties on the possible systems for distribution of licences for the tariff rate quota
regime.  If no feasible system can be found, the proposal for a transitional tariff rate quota
regime would not be maintained and nego tiations under Article XXVIII of GATT 1994 would
be envisaged to replace the current system with a tariff only regime.  At the DSB meeting on
24 February 2000, the EC explained that there continued to be divergent views expressed by
the main parties concerned and that, as a result, no agreed conclusions could be reached.
The arbitrator's report (on the Ecuadorian request for suspension of concessions) was
circulated to Members on 24 March 2000.  The arbitrators found that the level of nullification
and impairment suffered by Ecuador amounted to US$201.6 million per year.  The arbitrators
found that Ecuador may request authorization by the DSB to suspend concessions or other
obligations under GATT 1994 (not including investment goods or primary goods used as
inputs in manufacturing and processing industries); under GATS with respect to "wholesaleWT/DS/OV/7
Page 122
trade services" (CPC 622) in the principal di stribution services; and, to the extent that
suspension requested under GATT 1994 and GATS was insufficient to reach the level of
nullification and impairment determined by the arbitrators, under TRIPS in the following
sectors of that Agreement:  Section 1 (copyright and related rights); Article 14 on protection
of performers, producers of phonograms and broadcasting organisations), Section 3
(geographical indications), Section 4 (industrial designs).  The arbitrators also noted that,
pursuant to Article 22.3 of the DSU, Ecuador should first seek to suspend concessions or
other obligations with respect to the same sectors as those in which the panel reconvened at
the request of Ecuador pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU had found violations, i.e. GATT
1994 and the sector of distribution services under GATS.  On 8 May 2000, Ecuador
requested, pursuant to Article 22.7 of the DSU, that the DSB authorize the suspension of
concessions to the EC equivalent to the level of nullification and impairment, i.e. US$201.6million.  On 18 May 2000, the DSB authorized Ecuador to suspend concessions to the
European Communities as requested.
At the DSB meeting of 27 July 2000, the European Communities stated with respect to
implementation of the recommendations of the DSB that it had begun examining the
possibility of managing the proposed tariff rate quotas on a first come, first served basis
because negotiations with interested parties on tariff rate quota allocation on the basis of
traditional trade flows had reached an impasse.  The European Communities also said that its
examination would include a tariff only system and its implications. At the DSB meeting of
23 October 2000, the EC stated that it was finalizing its internal decision-making process witha view to implementing the new banana regime. To this effect, the EC considered that, during
a transitional period of time, its new banana regime should be regulated by the establishment
of tariff-rate quotas and managed on the basis of a "first-come, first-served" (FCFS) system.
Before the end of transitional period of time, the EC would initiate Article XXVIII
negotiations with a view to establishing a tariff-only system. On 1 March 2001, the ECreported to the DSB that on 29 January 2001, the Council of the European Union adopted
Regulation (EC) No 216/2001 amending Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 on the common
organisation of the market in bananas. The modifications made in Council Regulation
216/2001 provide for three tariff quotas open to all imports irrespective of their origin: (1) a
first tariff quota of 2.200.000 tonnes at a rate of 75€/tonnes, bound under the WTO; (2) a
second autonomous quota of 353.000 tonnes at a rate of 75€/tonnes; (3) a third autonomous
quota of 850.000 tonnes at a rate of 300€/tonnes. Imports from ACP countries will enter duty-
free. In view of contractual obligations towards these countries and the need to guarantee
proper conditions of competition, they will benefit from a tariff preference limited to a
maximum of 300€/tonnes. The tariff quotas are a transitional measure leading ultimately to a
tariff-only regime. According to the EC, substa ntial progress has been achieved with respect
to the implementing measures necessary to manage the three tariff rate quotas on the basis ofthe First-come, First-served method.
On 3 May 2001, the EC reported to the DSB that intensive discussions with the US and
Ecuador, as well as the other banana supplying countries, including the other co-
complainants, have led to the common identification of the means by which the long-standingdispute over the EC's bananas import regime will be resolved.  In accordance with Article
16(1) of Regulation No (EC) 404/93 (as ame nded by Council Regulation No (EC) 216/2001),
the EC will introduce a Tariff Only regime for imports of bananas no later than 1 January
2006. GATT Article XXVIII negotiations will be initiated in good time to that effect.  In the
interim period, starting on 1 July 2001, the EC will implement an import regime based onthree tariff rate quotas, to be allocated on the basis of historical licensing.
On 22 June 2001, the EC notified an "Understa nding on Bananas between the EC and the US"
of 11 April 2001, and an "Understanding on Bananas between the EC and Ecuador" of 30WT/DS/OV/7
Page 123
April 2001.  Pursuant to these Understandings with the US and Ecuador, the EC will
implement an import regime on the basis of historical licensing as follows:
(1) effective 1 July 2001, the EC will implement an import regime on the basis of
historical licensing as set out in annex to each of the Understandings;
(2) effective as soon as possible thereafter, subject to Council and European Parliament
approval and to adoption of an Article XIII waiver, the EC will implement an import
regime on the basis of historical licensing as set out in annex to each of the
Understandings.
The Commission will seek to obtain the implementation of such an import regime as soon as
possible.  Pursuant to its Understanding with the EC, the US,
(i) upon implementation of the new import regime described under (1) above, would
provisionally suspend its imposition of the increased duties;
(ii) upon implementation of the new import regime described under (2) above, would
terminate its imposition of the increased duties;
(iii) may reimpose the increased duties if the import regime described under (2) does not
enter into force by 1 January 2002; and
(iv) would lift its reserve concerning the waiver of Article I of the GATT 1994 that the
EC has requested for preferential access to the EC of goods originating in ACP states
signatory to the Cotonou Agreement; and will actively work towards promoting theacceptance of an EC request for a waiver of Article XIII of the GATT 1994 needed
for the management of quota C under the import regime described under (2) above
until 31 December 2005.
Pursuant to its Understanding with the EC, Ecuador(i) took note that the European Commission wi ll examine the trade in organic bananas
and report accordingly by 31 December 2004;
(ii) upon implementation of the new import regime, Ecuador's right to suspend
concessions or other obligations of a level not exceeding US$201.6 million per year
vis-à-vis the EC would be terminated;
(iii) Ecuador would lift its reserve concerning the waiver of Article I of the GATT 1994
that the EC has requested for preferential  access to the EC of goods originating in
ACP states signatory to the Cotonou Agreement; and would actively work towards
promoting the acceptance of an EC request for a waiver of Article XIII of the GATT
1994 needed for the management of quota C under the import regime described in
paragraph C(2) until 31 December 2005.
The EC notified the Understandings as mutually satisfactory solutions within the meaning of
Article 3.6 DSU.  Both Ecuador and the US co mmunicated that the Understandings did not
constitute mutually satisfactory solutions within the meaning of Article 3.6 DSU and that it
would be premature to take the item off the DSB agenda.  At the DSB meeting on25 September 2001, Ecuador made an oral statement whereby it criticised the Commission
proposal aimed at reforming the EC common organisation for bananas in order to honour the
above Understandings.
On 4 October 2001, the EC circulated a status report on the implementation where it indicated
that it was continuing to work actively on the legal instruments required for the management
of the three tariff quotas after 1 January 2002.  In addition, the EC's report indicated that no
progress had been made since the previous DSB meeting regarding the waiver request
submitted by the EC and the ACP States.  The EC further indicated that in the event that no
progress was made at the meeting of the Counci l of Trade in Goods scheduled for 5 OctoberWT/DS/OV/7
Page 124
2001, the EC and the ACP States would be forced to reassess the situation in all respects.  At
the DSB meeting on 15 October 2001, the EC recall ed that the procedure for the examination
of the waiver request had been unblocked at the meeting of the Council for Trade in Goods on
5 October 2001, and expressed its readiness to work and discuss with all interested parties in
the course of this examination.  Ecuador said that if the waiver was limited to what wasrequired during the transitional import regime then it could be granted quickly.  Guatemala
said that it would carefully follow the outcome of EC's actions and requested that the item
should remain on the DSB agenda.  Honduras noted that the EC had an obligation to describe
the measures to be put in place after 2005.  It also reiterated its concerns that the rights of
developing countries were not being respected.  Panama supported the statement by Honduras
and urged the EC to take into account the concerns of Latin American banana exporters.  The
US expressed satisfaction that the examination procedure of the waiver request had startedand hoped that the process would be expeditious.  Saint Lucia said that the statement by
Honduras that the EC disregarded the rights of some developing countries was inaccurate.  It
welcomed the start of the examination procedure and hoped that any current differences
would soon be resolved.  At the DSB meeting on 5 November 2001, the EC informed that the
Working Party to examine the waiver requests submitted by the EC and ACP had made someprogress.  Ecuador said that tariff preferences to be applied by the EC would reproduce the
same inconsistencies in the banana import regime.  Honduras indicated that it was necessary
to ensure that the scope of the waiver did not go beyond what was required for the
implementation of the new regime.  Panama said that even if the waiver was granted, the
dispute would not be settled.
At the DSB meeting on 18 December 2001, the EC welcomed the granting of the two waivers
by the Ministerial Conference, which were the prerequisite for the implementation of phase II
of the Understandings reached with the United States and Ecuador.  The EC noted that the
Regulation implementing phase II would be adopted on 19 December 2001, with effect on 1January 2002.  Ecuador, Honduras, Panama and Colombia noted the progress made and
sought information from the EC concerning the granting of import licences by one EC
Member State in a manner that was inconsistent with the Understandings.  On 21 January
2002, the EC announced that Regulation (EC) NO. 2587/2001 had been adopted by the
Council on 19 December 2001 and indicated that through this Regulation the EC had
implemented phase 2 of the Understandings with the US and Ecuador.
7. WT/DS31 – Canada - Certain Measures Concerning Periodicals
Complaint by the United States. The implementation period was agreed by the parties to be
15 months from the date of adoption of the re ports i.e. it expired on 30 October 1998.  Canada
has withdrawn the contested measure.
8. WT/DS33 – United States - Measure A ffecting Imports of Woven Wool Shirts and
Blouses
Complaint by India.  The US announced that the measure was withdrawn as at 22 November
1996, before the Panel had concluded its work.  Therefore, no implementation issue arose.
9. WT/DS34 – Turkey – Restrictions on Im ports of Textile and Clothing Products
Complaint by India.  At the DSB meeting of 19 November 1999, Turkey stated its intention to
comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.  On 7 January 2000, the parties
informed the DSB that they had agreed that  the reasonable period of time for Turkey to
implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings would expire on 19 February 2001.
Pursuant to the agreement reached, Turkey also  was to refrain from making more restrictive
restrictions affecting imports of specified tex tile and clothing products from India, to increaseWT/DS/OV/7
Page 125
the size of the quotas of India on certain specified  textile and clothing products and to treat India
no less favourably than any other Member with re spect to the elimination of or modification of
quantitative restrictions affecting any product covered by the agreement.
On 6 July 2001, the parties to the dispute notified the DSB that they have reached a mutually
acceptable solution regarding implementation by Turkey of the conclusions and
recommendations adopted by the DSB on the ma tter.  Pursuant to the Agreement, Turkey
agreed to
(1) remove the quantitative restrictions it applies on textile categories 24 and 27 in respect
of imports from India, by 30 June 2001 or th e date of signature of the Agreement;
(2) carry out tariff reductions on the applied rate basis as described in annex to the
Agreement, by 30 September 2001;
(3) strive towards early compliance with th e recommendations and rulings of the DSB.
Pursuant to the Agreement, the compensation w ould remain effective until Turkey removes all
quantitative restrictions applied as of 1 January 1996 in respect of imports from India for the 19categories of textile and clothing products.
At the meeting of the DSB on 18 December 2001, India made a statement concerning the lack
of notification by Turkey of tariff reductions carried out as part of the implementation
process.
10. WT/DS46 – Brazil - Export Financing Programme for Aircraft
Complaint by Canada.  At the DSB meeting of 19 November 1999, Brazil announced that it had
withdrawn the measures at issue within  90 days and had thus implemented the
recommendations and rulings of the DSB.
On 23 November 1999, Canada requested the esta blishment of a panel under Article 21.5 of the
DSU, requesting that the panel find that Brazil ha d not taken measures to comply fully with the
rulings and recommendations of the DSB.  Canada and Brazil reached an agreement concerning
the procedures to be applicable pursuant to Ar ticles 21 and 22 of the DSU and Article 4 of the
Subsidies Agreement.  At its meeting on 9 D ecember 1999, the DSB agreed to reconvene the
original panel pursuant to Article 21.5.  The report  of the Panel was circulated to the Members
on 9 May 2000.
On 10 May, Canada requested authorization from  the DSB to suspend the application to Brazil
of concessions or other related obligations under the GATT, the Textiles Agreement and the
Import Licensing Agreement, pursuant to Article 4.10 of the Subsidies Agreement and Article22.2 of the DSU, in an amount of Can$700 million per year.
On 22 May 2000, Brazil notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the review panel.  At the DSB meeting on 22 May 2000, Brazil
also requested arbitration, pursuant to Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the Subsidies
Agreement, to determine whether the countermeasures requested by Canada were appropriate.
The DSB referred the matter to the original panel for arbitration, it being understood that no
countermeasures would be sought pending the re port of the Appellate Body and until after the
arbitration report.
The report of the Appellate Body was circ ulated to Members on 9 May 2000.  The Appellate
Body upheld the review panel's conclusion that Brazil had failed to implement the
recommendation of the DSB because of the contin ued issuance by Brazil of NTN-I bonds, after
18 November 1999, pursuant to letters of commitment issued before 18 November 1999.  TheWT/DS/OV/7
Page 126
Appellate Body also upheld the review panel's findings that payments made under the revised
PROEX are prohibited by Article 3 of the Subsidies Agreement and are not justified under item
(k) of the Illustrative List of the same Agreem ent.  The Appellate Body therefore upheld the
review panel's conclusion that Brazil has failed  to implement the recommendations of the DSB.
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and th e panel report, as modified by the Appellate
Body report, at its meeting on 4 August 2000.
Brazil stated its intention to bring future PR OEX operations in line with the recommendations
of the DSB.  The arbitrator's report was circulated to Members on 28 August 2000.  The
arbitrators found that the appr opriate countermeasures in this case amounted to C$344.2 million
per year.  The arbitrators found that Canada ma y request authorization by the DSB to suspend
tariff concessions or other obligations under GATT 1994, the Agreement on Textiles andClothing and the Agreement on Import Licensi ng Procedures. At the DSB meeting of 12
December 2000, Canada received, pursuant to Article 22.7 of the DSU and Article 4.10 of the
SCM Agreement, authorization from the DSB to suspend the application to Brazil of tariff
concessions or other obligations under GATT 1994, the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing
and the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures  covering trade in a maximum amount of C$
344.2 million per year. On 12 December 2000, Brazil advised the DSB of changes that it had
made to the measures at issue in this case and claimed that PROEX had been brought into
compliance with Brazil's obligations under the SCM Agreement. Canada is of the view that
Brazil continues to violate its SCM Agreement obligations. According to Canada, there is
therefore a disagreement between Canada and Brazil as to whether the measures taken byBrazil to comply with the 20 August 1999 and 4 August 2000 rulings and recommendations
of the DSB bring Brazil into conformity with the provisions of the SCM Agreement and result
in the withdrawal of the export subs idies to regional aircraft under PROEX.
On 22 January 2001, Canada requested the DSB to refer the matter again to the original panel,
pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. At its m eeting of 16 February 2001, the DSB referred the
matter to the original panel. Australia, the EC and Korea reserved their third-party rights.  The
Panel circulated its report on 26 July 2001.  At  its meeting on 23 August 2001, the DSB adopted
the Panel Report on this second rec ourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU.
11. WT/DS50 – India - Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical
Products
Complaint by the United States.  At the DS B meeting of 22 April 1998, the parties announced
that they had agreed on an implementation peri od of 15 months from the date of the adoption of
the reports i.e. it expired on 16 April 1999.  India undertook to comply with the
recommendations of the DSB within the impl ementation period.  At the DSB meeting on 28
April 1999, India presented its final status report on implementation of this matter whichdisclosed the enactment of the relevant legi slation to implement the recommendations and
rulings of the DSB.
12. WT/DS54, WT/DS55, WT/DS 59 and WT/DS64 – Indonesia - Certain Measures
Affecting the Automobile Industry
Complaints by the United States, the European Communities and Japan.  Indonesia indicated its
intention to comply with the recommendations of the DSB within the time permissible under
Article 21 of the DSU.  On 8 October 1998, the EC, pursuant to Article 21.3 of the DSU,
requested that the reasonable period of implemen tation be determined by binding arbitration.
The Arbitrator determined that the reasonable  period of time for Indonesia to implement the
recommendations and rulings of the DSB was 12 m onths from the date of adoption of the Panel
Report i.e. it expired on 23 July 1999.  The report of  the Arbitrator was circulated to Members
on 7 December 1998.  By a communication dated 15 July 1999, Indonesia informed the DSBWT/DS/OV/7
Page 127
that it had issued a new automotive policy on 24 June 1999 (the 1999 Automotive Policy),
which effectively implemented the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this matter.
13. WT/DS56 – Argentina - Certai n Measures Affecting Imports of Footwear, Textiles,
Apparel and Other Items
Complaint by the United States.  At the DSB meeting on 22 June 1998, Argentina announced
that it had reached an agreement on implemen tation with the US, whereby Argentina would
reduce the statistical tax to 0.5% by 1 January 1999, and cap specific duties on textiles and
apparel at 35% by 19 October 1998.  At the DSB meeting on 26 May 1999, Argentina
announced that Decree 108/99, pursuant to whic h no import transactions covered by the
statistical tax shall be taxed in excess of th e amounts agreed between it and the United States,
would enter into force on 30 May 1999.
14. WT/DS58 – United States - Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products
Complaint by India, Malaysia, Pakistan and Thailand. On 25 November 1998, the US
informed the DSB that it was committed to implementing the recommendations of the DSB
and was looking forward to discussing with the complainants the question of implementation.The parties to the dispute announced that they had agreed on an implementation period of 13
months from the date of adoption of the Appellat e Body and Panel Reports, i.e. it expired on
6 December 1999.  On 22 December 1999, Malaysia and the United States informed the DSB
that they had reached an understanding regarding possible proceedings under Articles 21 and
22 of the DSU.
At the DSB meeting on 27 January 2000, the US stated that it had implemented the DSB's
rulings and recommendations.  The US noted that it had issued revised guidelines
implementing its Shrimp/Turtle law which were intended to (i) introduce greater flexibility in
considering the comparability of foreign programmes and the US programme and (ii)elaborate a timetable and procedures for certification decisions.  The US also noted that it had
undertaken and continued to undertake efforts to initiate negotiations with the governments of
the Indian Ocean region on the protection of sea turtles in that region.  Finally, the US stated
that it offered and continued to offer technical training in the design, construction, installation
and operation of TEDs to any government that requested it.  See also Section VI.B.
On 12 October 2000, Malaysia requested that the matter be referred to the original panel
pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU, considering that by not lifting the import prohibition and
not taking the necessary measures to allow the importation of certain shrimp and shrimp
products in an unrestrictive manner, the United States had failed to comply with the
recommendations and rulings of the DSB. At  its meeting of 23 October 2000, the DSB
referred the matter to the original panel pursuant to Article 21.5 DSU.
On 9 July 2001, the US notified its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of
law covered in the Panel Report and certain legal interpretations developed by the Panel.  On
5 September 2001, the Appellate Body informed the DSB that it would not be able to
circulate its report within the 7 September deadline.  Accordingly, the Report is expected tobe circulated no later than 8 October 2001.
15. WT/DS69 – European Communities - Measures Affecting Importation of Certain
Poultry Products
Complaint by Brazil.  The EC and Brazil announced at the DSB meeting on 21 October 1998,
that they had reached a mutual agreement on a reasonable period of time for implementation,
which was to be the period up to 31 March 1999.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 128
16. WT/DS70 – Canada - Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft
Complaint by Brazil.  At the DSB meeting of  19 November 1999, Canada announced that it had
withdrawn the measures at issue within  90 days and thus had implemented the
recommendations and rulings of the DSB.  On 23 November 1999, Brazil requested the
establishment of a panel under Article 21.5 because it believed that Canada had not taken
measures to comply fully with the rulings and recommendations of the DSB.  Brazil and
Canada reached an agreement concerning the pro cedures to be applicable pursuant to Articles
21 and 22 of the DSU and Article 4 of the Subsid ies Agreement.  At its meeting on 9 December
1999, the DSB agreed to reconvene the original  panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU.
Australia, the EC and the US reserved their third-party rights.
The compliance panel report was circulated to Members on 9 May 2000.  The panel concluded
that Canada's measures did not ensure that such Canada Account transactions would not be
prohibited export subsidies.
On 22 May 2000, Brazil notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal
interpretations developed by the review panel.  The report of the Appellate Body was circulated
to Members on 9 May 2000.  The Appellate Body f ound that Brazil had failed to establish that
Canada has not implemented the recommenda tions of the DSB.  The DSB adopted the
Appellate Body report and the panel report, as m odified by the Appellate Body report, at its
meeting on 4 August 2000.  Canada stated its intention to implement the recommendations of
the DSB in respect of the Canada Account Programme.
17. WT/DS75 and WT/DS84 - Korea – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages
Complaints by the European Communities and the United States.  At the DSB meeting on
19 March 1999, Korea informed the DSB that it was considering options for implementation ofthe DSB's recommendations.  On 9 April 1999, the two complainants separately requested,
pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, that  the reasonable period of time for Korea to
implement the recommendations of the DSB be determined by arbitration.  On 23 April 1999,
the three parties to the dispute jointly info rmed the DSB that they had agreed on the
appointment of an arbitrator for the determ ination of the reasonable period of time for
implementation, and also that they had agreed th at the arbitrator issue his arbitration award no
later than 7 June 1999.  On 4 June 1999, the arbitrator determined the reasonable period of timeto be 11 months and two weeks. i.e. until 31 January 2000.  At the DSB meeting on 27 January
2000, Korea stated that it considered to ha ve fully implemented the DSB's rulings and
recommendations by amending its Liquor Tax Law and the Education Tax Law to impose flat
rates of 72% liquor tax and 30% education tax on all distilled alcoholic beverages on a non-
discriminatory basis.
18. WT/DS76 – Japan - Measures Affecting Agricultural Products
Complaint by the United States.  Pursuant to Article 21.3 of the DSU, Japan informed the DSB
on 13 April 1999 that it was studying ways in wh ich to implement the recommendations of the
DSB.  In a joint communication, the two par ties informed the DSB on 15 June 1999, that they
had agreed on an implementation period of 9 m onths and 12 days from the date of adoption of
the reports, i.e. from 19 March to 31 December 1999.
On 31 December 1999, Japan abolished the vari etal testing requirement as well as the
"Experimental Guide" in accordance with th e DSB's rulings.  At the DSB meeting on 14
January 2000, Japan also stated that it was conduc ting consultations with the US regarding a
new quarantine methodology for those products subject to import prohibitions because theyWT/DS/OV/7
Page 129
were hosts of codling moth.  At the DSB meeting on 24 February 2000, Japan noted that it
expected to reach a mutually satisfactory so lution with the US regarding a new quarantine
methodology.
On 23 August 2001, Japan and the US notified to the DSB that they had reached a mutually
satisfactory solution with respect to conditions for lifting import prohibitions on the fruits and
nuts at issue in the dispute.
19. WT/DS79 – India - Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical
Products
Complaint by the European Communities.  Indi a indicated at the DSB meeting of 21 October
1998, that it needed a reasonable period of time to comply with the DSB recommendations and
that it intended to have bilateral consultations  with the EC to agree on a mutually acceptable
period of time.  At the DSB meeting on 25 No vember 1998, India read out a joint statement
done with the EC, in which it was agreed that the implementation period in this dispute would
correspond to the implementation period in a simila r dispute brought by the US (DS50). At the
DSB meeting on 28 April 1999, India presented its final status report on implementation of
DS50, which also applies to implementation in this  dispute.  The report disclosed the enactment
of the relevant legislation to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.
20. WT/DS87 and WT/DS110– Chile – Ta xes on Alcoholic Beverages
Complaints by the European Communities.  On  11 February 2000, Chile informed the DSB that
it was studying ways in which to implement th e recommendations of the DSB, noting that any
changes to its tax laws required the approval  of the National Congress and that it would
therefore require a reasonable period of time to implement the recommendations of the DSB.
On 15 March 2000, Chile requested, pursuant to Arti cle 21.3(c) of the DSU, that the reasonable
period of time be determined by arbitration.
The report of the arbitrator was circulat ed to Members on 23 May 2000.  The arbitrator
determined, pursuant to Article 21.3 of the DSU, that the reasonable period of time for Chile to
implement the recommendations and rulings of th e DSB is not more than 14 months and 9 days
from 12 January 2000, i.e. Chile had until 21 March 2001 to enact and put into effect a law
appropriately amending the relevant tax legislation.
At the DSB meeting of 1 February 2001, Chile an nounced that implementing legislation  was
adopted by a clear majority in both the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate, and that its full
entry into force awaits only on its promulgation by the President of the Republic and its
publication in the Official Journal. Under this legislative reform, the existing rate of 27 per
cent would be maintained for Pisco, while that same rate would be applied to other alcoholicbeverages as from 21 March 2003.  In the meantime, the tax applied to those spirits will be
progressively reduced to 27 per cent.
21. WT/DS90 – India - Quantitative Restrictions  on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and
Industrial Products
Complaint by the United States.  At the DS B meeting of 14 October 1999, India stated its
intention to comply with the recommendations  and rulings of the DSB, at the same time
drawing attention to the Panel's suggesti on that the reasonable period of time for
implementation in this case could be longer than  15 months in view of the practice of the IMF,
the BOP Committee and GATT and WTO panels of granting longer phase-out periods for the
elimination of BOP restrictions, and in view of India's status as a deve loping country Member.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 130
On 28 December 1999, the parties informed the DSB that they had reached an agreement on the
reasonable period of time for India to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the
DSB.  The reasonable period of time was to expire on 1 April 2000, except for some tariff items
to be notified by India to the US for which the reasonable period of time was to expire on
1 April 2001.  Pursuant to the agreement reached, India had to treat the US no less favourablythan any other Member with respect to the el imination of or modification of quantitative
restrictions affecting any product covered by the agreement.  At the DSB meeting of 27 July
2000, India stated that it had notified to the United States those tariff items for which the
reasonable period is to expire on 1 April 2001 and that for all other items India had
implemented the recommendation of the DSB by  1 April 2000. At the DSB meeting of 5 April
2001, India announced that, with effect from 1 April 2001, it had removed the quantitative
restrictions on imports in respect of the remaining 715 items and had thus implemented theDSB's recommendations in this case. The United States  welcomed India's action and said that
it had some specific questions to ask India in the next few days.
22. WT/DS98 – Korea - Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Certain Dairy
Products
Complaint by the European Communities.  On  11 February 2000, Korea informed the DSB that
it was studying ways in which to implement the recommendations of the DSB.  On 21 March
2000, the parties notified the DSB that they ha d agreed on a reasonable period of time for
Korea's implementation of the recommendations of the DSB.  Pursuant to that agreement, the
reasonable period expired on 20 May 2000. At th e DSB meeting of 26 September 2000, Korea
informed the DSB that it had lifted its safe guard measure on 20 May 2000 and stated that it
thereby had completed the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in this case.
23. WT/DS99 – United States - Anti-Dumping  Duty on Dynamic Random Access Memory
Semiconductors (DRAMS) of One Megabit or Above from Korea
Complaint by Korea.  On 13 April 1999, the United States informed the DSB it was studying
ways in which to implement the recommendations of the DSB.  At the DSB meeting on 26 July
1999, the two parties notified the DSB that they had agreed on an implementation period of 8
months effective from the date of adoption of the report, i.e. from 19 March 1999.  The
reasonable period of time expired on 19 November 1999.
At the DSB meeting on 27 January 2000, the US stated  that it considered to have implemented
the recommendations and rulings by the DSB.  The US recalled that the Commerce Department
had amended section 351.222(b) by deleting the " not likely" standard and incorporating the
"necessary" standard of the Anti-Dumping Agreem ent.  The Commerce Department then issued
a revised Final Results of Redetermination in the Third Administrative Review on 4 November
1999, concluding that, because a resumption of dumping was likely, it was necessary to leavethe anti-dumping order in place.
On 9 March 2000, Korea informed the DSB that it believed that the measures taken by the
United States to comply with the rulings and recommendations of the DSB were not consistent
with the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article X:1 of GATT 1994.  Korea therefore requestedthat this matter be referred to the original pane l pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU.  On 6 April
2000, Korea submitted a new request to the effect that the matter be referred to the original
panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU.  At  its meeting on 25 April 2000, the DSB agreed to
reconvene the original panel pursuant to Article  21.5 of the DSU.  The EC reserved its reserved
its third-party rights.
On 19 September 2000, Korea requested the Panel to suspend its work, including the issuance
of the interim report, "until further notification" pursuant to Article 12.12 of the DSU.  TheWT/DS/OV/7
Page 131
Panel, in a letter sent to the parties on 21 September 2000, agreed to this request.  On 20
October 2000, the parties notified the DSB of a mutually satisfactory solution to the matter,
involving the revocation of the antidumping order at issue as the result of a five-year "sunset"
review by the US Department of Commerce.
24. WT/DS103 and WT/DS113 – Canada - Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and
the Exportation of Dairy Products
Complaints by the United States and New Zeal and.  At the DSB meeting of 19 November 1999,
Canada stated its intention to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.  On
23 December 1999, Canada informed the DSB that, pursuant to Article 21.3 of the DSU and
after having agreed to extend the time periods set forth in Article 21.3(b) of the DSU, it has
reached an understanding with the US and New Zealand on four discrete periods of time to beaccorded a staged implementation process.  According to the implementation agreement,
Canada must complete the last stage of the implementation process no later than 31 December
2000. On 11 December 2000, Canada, the US and New Zealand informed the DSB that they
had agreed to extend the reasonable period of time until 31 January 2001.
On 16 February 2001, both the US and New Zealand requested the DSB to refer the matter to
the original panel pursuant to Article 21.5 DSU. At its meeting of 1 March 2001, the DSB
referred the matter to the original panel, if possible. Australia, the EC and Mexico reserved
their third party rights. Also on 16 February 2001, both the US and New Zealand requested
authorization from the DSB, pursuant to Article 22.2 DSU, to suspend the application toCanada of tariff concessions and related obligations under the GATT 1994, each covering
trade in the amount of US$ 35 million on an annual basis. On 28 February 2001, Canada
objected to the level of suspension and requested that the matter be referred to arbitration
pursuant to Article 22.6 DSU.  At its meeting of 1 March 2001, the DSB referred the matter to
arbitration.
25. WT/DS108 – United States - Tax Treatm ent for "Foreign Sales Corporations"
Complaint by the European Communities.  Pursuant to Article 21.3 of the DSU, the US
informed the DSB on 7 April 2000 of its intenti on to implement the recommendations of the
DSB in a manner consistent with its WTO obligations .  At the request of the United States, at its
meeting of 12 October 2000, the DSB modified the time-period for implementation so as to
expire on 1 November 2000.  On 17 November 2000, the US stated that, with the adoption on
15 November 2000 of the FSC Repeal and Extrat erritorial Income Exclusion Act, it had
implemented the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.  On the same date, the EC stated
that, in its view, the US had failed to comply with the DSB recommendations and rulings, and
requested the US to enter into consultations w ith the EC pursuant to Articles 4 and 21.5 of the
DSU, Article 4 of the SCM Agreement, Article 19 of the Agreement on Agriculture and ArticleXXIII:1 of GATT 1994.  Also on 17 November 2000, the EC requested authorisation from the
DSB to take appropriate countermeasures and suspend concessions pursuant to Article 4.10 of
the SCM Agreement and Article 22.2 of the DSU.
Pursuant to an agreement between the parties to the dispute, the US  would request arbitration
with respect to the EC's request and the arbitration would be suspended until the reconstituted
panel has decided the conformity of the new US  legislation with the panel and Appellate Body
reports.  On 27 November 2000, the US requested that the matter be referred to arbitration
pursuant to Article 22.6 of the DSU. On 7 December 2000, the EC notified the DSB that
consultations had failed to settle the dispute a nd that it was requesting the establishment of a
panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. At its meeting of 20 December, the DSB agreed to
refer the matter to the original panel.  On 21 December 2000, pursuant to an agreement
between the parties, the US and the EC join tly requested the Article 22.6 DSU arbitrator toWT/DS/OV/7
Page 132
suspend the arbitration proceeding until adoption of the panel report or, if there is an appeal,
adoption of the Appellate Body report.  The arbitration was accordingly suspended.
On 7 December 2000, the EC notified the DSB that consultations had failed to settle the dispute
and that it was requesting the establishment of a panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU.  Atits meeting of 20 December, the DSB agreed to refer the matter to the original panel.  On
21 December 2000, pursuant to an agreement between the parties, the US and the EC jointly
requested the Article 22.6 DSU arbitrator to suspend the arbitration proceeding until adoption
of the panel report or, if there is an appeal, adoption of the Appellate Body report.  The
arbitration was accordingly suspended.
On 20 August 2001, the compliance panel report was circulated to the Members.  The Panel
concluded that the amended FSC legislation was still inconsistent with Articles 3.1(a) and 3.2
of the SCM Agreement, with 10.1 and 8 of the Agreement on Agriculture and with
Article III:4 of the GATT 1994.
26. WT/DS114 – Canada - Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products
Complaint by the European Communities and their member States.  Pursuant to Article 21.3 of
the DSU, Canada informed the DSB on 25 Apr il 2000 that it would require a reasonable period
of time in order to implement the recommendati ons of the DSB.  Since the parties failed to
reach a mutually satisfactory solution as to th e "reasonable period of time" for implementation
of the recommendations of the DSB, despite a mu tually agreed extension of the period of time
foreseen in Article 21.3(b) of the DSU, on 9 June 2000, the European Communities and their
member States requested that the reasonable period of time be determined by arbitration
pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU.  The ar bitrator determined, pursuant to Article 21.3 of
the DSU, that the reasonable period of time for Canada to implement the recommendations and
rulings of the DSB is six months from the date of adoption of the panel report and that the
reasonable period would thus end on 7 October 2000.  At the DSB meeting of 23 October 2000,
Canada informed Members that, effective from 7 October 2000, it had implemented the DSB's
recommendations.
27. WT/DS121 – Argentina - Safeguard Measures on Imports of Footwear
Complaint by the European Communities.  Purs uant to Article 21.3 of the DSU, Argentina
informed the DSB on 11 February 2000 that the safeguard measure would remain in force until
25 February 2000 and, by that date, the measures aimed at complying with the DSB's
recommendations and ruling would be adopted.
28. WT/DS122 – Thailand - Anti-Dumping Duties on  Angles, Shapes and Sections of Iron or
Non-Alloy Steel and H-Beams from Poland
Complaint by Poland.  Thailand informed the DSB that it was in the process of identifying the
most suitable way to comply with the DSB's r ecommendations in this case and that it would
need a reasonable period of time for implementation. Poland reiterated its position that in
order to implement the DSB's recommendations in this case Thailand would have to revoke
the duties currently in place.  If not, Poland would seek recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU.Poland was ready to enter into consultations with Thailand on a reasonable period of time for
implementation.  On 25 May 2001, the parties to the dispute informed the DSB that they had
agreed that the reasonable period of time shall be 6 months and 15 days and therefore expired
on 20 October 2001.
At the DSB meeting on 18 December 2001, Thailand announced that it had fully implemented
the DSB's recommendations in the case on "Thailand – Anti-Dumping Duties on Angles,WT/DS/OV/7
Page 133
Shapes and Sections of Iron or Non-Alloy St eel and H-Beams from Poland".  Poland said that
it could not accept the way in which Thailand had implemented the DSB's recommendations
because it expected that the measures in question would be either rescinded or modified.  In
Poland's view, Thailand only changed the justification for the imposition of the measures.
Poland reserved its rights under Article 21.5 of the DSU.
On 18 December 2001, Thailand and Poland concluded an understanding with regard to
possible proceedings under Article 21 and 22 of the DSU.  Pursuant to the understanding, in
the event that Poland initiates proceedings under Articles 21.5 and 22 of the DSU, Poland
agrees to initiate complete proceedings under 21.5 prior to any proceedings under Article 22.
On 21 January 2002, the parties informed the DSB that they have reached an agreement to the
effect that the implementation of the recommendations of the DSB in this dispute should nolonger remain on the agenda of the DSB.
29. WT/DS126 – Australia - Subsidies Provided to Producers and Exporters of Automotive
Leather
Complaint by the United States.  On 17 Septem ber 1999, Australia informed the DSB that it had
implemented the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.  On 4 October 1999, the United
States informed the DSB that it believed that th e measures taken by Australia to comply with
the rulings and recommendations of the DSB were  not consistent with the Subsidies Agreement
and the DSU, and therefore requested that th e original panel be reconvened pursuant to
Article 21.5 of the DSU. The EC and Mexico re served their third-party rights.  The United
States and Australia reached an agreement concerni ng certain procedures to be applicable in this
case under Articles 21 and 22.  That agreement provided, inter alia , that Australia will not raise
any procedural objection to the establishment of a panel in accordance with Article 21.5 of the
DSU, while the United States will not request authorization to suspend concessions pursuant to
Article 22.2 of the DSU until after the review panel has circulated its report.  Also, it has beenagreed that neither party will appeal the review panel's report.
At its meeting on 14 October 1999, the DSB agreed to reconvene the original panel pursuant to
Article 21.5 of the DSU.  The EC and Mexico rese rved their third-party rights.  On 1 November
1999, the Compliance Panel was composed.  The compliance panel report was circulated to
Members on 21 January 2000.  The compliance panel determined that Australia had failed to
comply with the DSB's recommendations within 90 days, and thus had not taken measures to
comply with the recommendation of the DSB in this dispute.  The DSB adopted the review
panel's report on 11 February 2000.  On 24 July 2000, the parties notified the DSB that they had
reached a mutually satisfactory solution in rega rd to implementation of the findings of the
review panel.
30. WT/DS132 – Mexico - Anti-Dum ping Investigation of High-Fructose Corn Syrup
(HFCS) from the United States
Complaint by the United States.  Pursuant to Article 21.3 of the DSU, Mexico informed the
DSB on 20 March 2000 that it was studying ways in which to implement the recommendations
of the DSB.  Mexico also indicated that it w ould need a reasonable period of time in order to
implement the DSB recommendations.  On 19 April 2000, the parties informed the DSB that
they had agreed, pursuant to Article 21.3(b) of  the DSU, on a reasonable period of time to be
granted to Mexico to implement the recomme ndations of the DSB.  That period expired on
22 September 2000.  At the DSB meeting of 26 September 2000, Mexico stated that it had
published on 20 September 2000 the final determination on anti-dumping investigation of high-fructose corn syrup from the US  and thereb y complied with the DSB's recommendation.  US
stated that it would examine Mexico's final determination.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 134
On 12 October 2000, the US requested that the DSB refer the matter to the original panel,
pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU, in orde r to establish whether Mexico had correctly
implemented the DSB's recommendations. At its meeting of 23 October 2000, the DSB
referred the matter to the original panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. The EC, Jamaica
and Mauritius reserved their third-party rights to participate in the Panel's proceedings. The
US and Mexico informed the DSB that they were discussing mutually agreeable procedures
under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU in relation to this matter.
The Article 21.5 Panel circulated its report on 22 June 2001. The Panel considered that
Mexico has failed to implement the recommendation of the original Panel and the DSU to
bring its measure into conformity with its obligations under the AD Agreement.
On 24 July 2001, Mexico appealed the above Panel report.  On 20 September 2001, the
Appellate Body informed that the issuance of the report would be delayed.  The report was
circulated to WTO Members on 22 October 2001.  The DSB adopted the Appellate Body
report and the Panel report, as upheld by the Appellate Body report, on 21 November 2001.
31. WT/DS136 and WT/DS162 – United Stat es - Anti-Dumping Act of 1916
Complaints by the European Communities and Japan.  At the DSB meeting of 23 October 2000,
the US stated that it was its intention to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings.
The US also stated that it would require a reasonable period of time for implementation and
that it would consult with the EC and Japan on this matter.  On 17 November 2000, the ECand Japan requested that the reasonable period of time be determined by arbitration pursuant to
Article 21.3(c) of the DSU.  The arbitrator circulated his report on 28 February 2001.  He
decided that the reasonable period of time in this case was 10 months and would thus expire
on 26 July 2001. At its meeting on 24 July 2001, the DSB agreed to the US proposal to extend
the reasonable period of time until 31 December 2001 or the end of the current session of theUS Congress, whichever earlier.  This extension had been agreed with the parties.
At the DSB meeting on 18 December 2001, the US informed that on 23 July 2001 it
submitted proposed legislation to the US Congress repealing the 1916 Act and terminating all
pending actions under the Act..  It added that, since the US Congress has not yet been
adjourned, the US Administration continued to seek passage of the proposed legislation.
Japan urged the US to complete the implementation within the reasonable period of time.However, in the event of non-compliance by the US, Japan will use its rights under Article 22
of the DSU.  The EC also indicated that if  the US would fail to comply with the DSB's
recommendations, it would have no choice, but to request the authorization to suspend
concessions or other obligations under Article 22.2 of the DSU.  On 7 January 2002, on the
grounds that that the US had failed to brin g its measures into conformity within the
reasonable period of time, the EC and Japan requested authorisation to suspend concessions
pursuant to Article 22.2 of the DSU.  Both Members propose that the suspension of
concessions takes the form of an equivalent legislation to the Anti-Dumping Act of 1916
against imports from the U.S..  On 17 January 2002, the US objected to the levels of
suspension of obligations proposed by the EC and Japan and requested the DSB to refer thematter to arbitration, in accordance with Article 22.6 of the DSU.  The US claimed that the
principles and procedures of Article 22.3 had not been followed by the EC and Japan.  At the
DSB meeting on 18 January 2002, the matter was referred to arbitration.  During the meeting,
the parties indicated that they were still engaged in consultations and would be requesting the
arbitrators, once appointed, to suspend their work with a view to exploring the possibility offinding a mutually satisfactory solution.  On 25 February 2002, the US submitted to the DSB
a status report regarding implementation of the DSB recommendations and rulings. On 27
February 2002, the parties requested  the arbitrator to suspend the arbitration proceeding
noting that a proposal to repeal the 1916 Act and to terminate cases pending under the ActWT/DS/OV/7
Page 135
was being examined by the US Congress.  Th e parties noted, however, that the arbitration
proceeding could be reactivated at the request of either party after 30 June 2002 if no
substantial progress would have been made in resolving the dispute by then.
At the DSB meeting on 17 April 2002, the US submitted its Status Report regarding
implementation of the DSB recommendations and rulings.  The US stated that a bill had
already been introduced to repeal the 1916 Antidumping Act and terminate some pending
cases.  While acknowledging the progress made, the EC and Japan stressed the necessity for
prompt compliance.  Japan noted that under its bilateral agreement with the US, either party
could re-activate the arbitration proceedings after 30 June 2002.
At the DSB meeting on 22 May 2002, the US submitted its status report regarding the
implementation of the DSB recommendations and rulings.  The US stated that on 23 April 2002
a bill had been introduced in the US Senate which would repeal the 1916 Act and apply to all
pending court cases.
32. WT/DS138 – United States – Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Certain Hot-Rolled
Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Produc ts Originating in the United Kingdom
Complaint by the European Communities.  At the DSB meeting on 5 July 2000, the United
States announced that it considered to have implemented the recommendations of the DSB with
regard to the case concerning its countervailing duty order on certain hot-rolled lead and
bismuth carbon steel products originating in the United Kingdom.  As a follow-up to this case,
the EC has filed a new complaint against the US continued application of countervailing duties
based on the "change of ownership" methodol ogy.  For further information, see WT/DS212.
33. WT/DS139 and WT/DS142 – Canada – Cert ain Measures Affecting the Automotive
Industry
Complaints by Japan and the European Communities.  Pursuant to Article 21.3 of the DSU,
Canada informed the DSB on 19 July 2000 that it would comply with the recommendations of
the DSB.  One of the recommendations made by  the DSB was that Canada withdraw within 90
days the export subsidy found to be inconsistent with Article 3.1(a) of the Subsidies Agreement.
On 4 August 2000, Japan and the European Communities requested, pursuant to Article 21.3(c)
of the DSU, that the reasonable period of time  be determined by arbitration. The arbitrator
determined that the "reasonable period of time" was 8 months from the date of adoption of theAppellate Body and Panel Reports, as modifi ed by the Appellate Body Report.  The
"reasonable period of time" was thus to expire on 19 February 2001 . At the DSB meeting of
12 March 2001, Canada stated that, as of 18 February 2001, it had complied with the DSB's
recommendations.
34. WT/DS141 – European Communities – Anti-D umping Duties on Imports of Cotton-
Type Bed-Linen from India
Complaint by India.  At the DSB meeting of 5 April 2001, the EC announced its intention to
implement the DSB's recommendations in this case and said that it would need a reasonable
period of time to do so.  India said that the EC could complete its implementation processwithin a very short period of time. On 26 April 2001, the parties to the dispute notified the
DSB that they had mutually agreed that the reasonable period of time shall be five months
and two days, that is from 12 March 2001 until 14 August 2001.
The EC amended its regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of cotton-
type bed linen originating in Egypt, India and Pakistan and suspending its application with
regard to imports originating in India by the deadline of 14 August 2001.   However, India, atWT/DS/OV/7
Page 136
the 23 August meeting of the DSB, made a statement whereby it expressed the view that the
new EC Regulation did not bring the EC legislation into full compliance with the DSB's
recommendations.
On 13 September 2001, India and the EC informed the DSB that they had reached an
understanding regarding the procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU.  This
understanding foresees that if on the basis of the results of proceedings under Article 21.5 that
might be initiated by India, India decides to initiate proceedings under Article 22, the EC
would not assert that India is precluded from doing so because its request was made outside
the 30 day time-period.
On 8 March 2002, India sought recourse to  Article 21.5 of the DSU (request for
consultations), stating that there was disagreemen t as to the existence or consistency with a
covered agreement of measures taken to comply with the recommendations and rulings.  On 4
April 2002, India requested the establishment of a compliance panel. At the DSB meeting
on 17 April 2002, India informed the DSB that pursuant to an understanding reached between
the EC and India, it was requesting the withdrawal of the item from the agenda in accordancewith Rule 6 of the Rules of Procedure for WTO meetings.  The DSB agreed to India's request.
On 7 May 2002, India again requested the establishment of a compliance panel. At the DSB
meeting on 22 May 2002, it was agreed that, if possible, the matter would be referred to the
original panel.  The United States reserved its third party rights to participate in theproceedings.
35. WT/DS146 and WT/DS175 – In dia - Measures Affecting the Automotive Sector
Complaints by the European Communities (WT/DS146) and the United States (WT/DS175).
On 2 May 2002, India informed the DSB that it would need a reasonable period of time toimplement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB and that it was ready to enter into
discussions with the EC and the US in this regard.
36. WT/DS155 – Argentina - Measures on the Ex port of Bovine Hides and the Import of
Finished Leather
Complaint by the European Communities.  At the DSB meeting of 12 March 2001, Argentina
stated its intention to implement the DSB's recommendations and indicated that it would needa reasonable period of time to do so.  On 14 May 2001, the EC requested that the reasonable
period of time be determined through binding arbitration pursuant to Article 21.3(c).  On
31 August 2001, the Arbitrator circulated its award whereby the reasonable period of time
was fixed at 12 months and 12 days from 16 February 2001.  This period was therefore to
expire on 28 February 2002.
In view of the concrete action undertaken by Argentina to comply with the DSB
recommendations and rulings during the reasonable period of time in this dispute, and in light
of the economic problems that Argentina is currently facing, the parties agreed on the
following procedures: the parties would pursue  their discussions on compliance by Argentina
with the DSB recommendations and rulings; and the EC would retain the right to make a
request for authorization to suspend concessions or other obligations under the DSU at any
time after the expiry of the reasonable period of time, but only after completion of
proceedings under Article 21.5 DSU.  On 25 February 2002, the parties requested the DSB to
circulate their agreement on procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU.   On 8 March2002, the parties notified the DSB of their agreement.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 137
37. WT/DS156 – Guatemala - Definitive Anti- dumping Measure regarding Grey Portland
Cement from Mexico
Complaint by Mexico.  At the DSB meeting of 12 December 2000, in accordance with Article
21.3 of the DSU, Guatemala informed the DSB that in October 2000 it had removed its anti-
dumping measure and had thus complied with the DSB's recommendations. Mexico
welcomed Guatemala's implementation in this case.
38. WT/DS160 – United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act
Complaint by the European Communities.  Pursuant to Article 21.3 of the DSU, the US
informed the DSB on 24 August 2000 that it would implement the recommendations of the
DSB.  The US proposed 15 months as a reasonable period of time within which to implement
those recommendations.  On 23 October 2000, the EC requested that the reasonable period oftime for implementation be determined by mean s of binding arbitration as provided for in
Article 21.3 (c) DSU. The Arbitrator circulat ed his Award on 15 January 2001. The Arbitrator
determined that the reasonable period of time for the US to implement the recommendations
and rulings of the DSB in this case is 12 months from the date of the adoption of the panel
report.  At its meeting of 24 July 2001, the DSB agreed to the US proposal to extend thereasonable period of time until 31 December 2001 or the end of the current session of the US
Congress, whichever earlier.  This extension had been agreed with the EC.
On 23 July 2001, the US and the EC notified the DSB of their agreement to pursue arbitration
pursuant to Article 25.2 of the DSU in order to determine the level of nullification orimpairment of benefits to the EC as result of Section 110(5)(B) of the US Copyright Act.  On
9 November 2001, the arbitrator determined that the level of EC benefits which were being
nullified or impaired as a result of the operation of Section 110(5)(B) amounted to Euro
1,219,900 per year.
At the DSB meeting on 18 December 2001, the US indicated that it was engaged in
productive discussions with the EC with a view to  resolving the dispute before the end of the
expiry of the reasonable period of time.  The EC underlined that the resolution of the dispute
required an amendment of the WTO-inconsistent legislation.  The EC stated that if it was not
possible to conclude any arrangements before the end of the reasonable period of time, it
would have to seek the DSB's authorization to suspend concessions or other obligations under
Article 22.2 of the DSU.  On 7 January 2002, on the grounds that that the US had failed tobring its measures into conformity within the reasonable period of time, the EC requested
authorisation to suspend concessions pursuant to Article 22.2 of the DSU.  The EC proposed
to suspend concessions under the TRIPs Agreement in order to permit the levying of a special
fee from US nationals in connection with border measures concerning copyright goods.  On
17 January 2002, the US objected to the level of suspension of obligations proposed by theEC and requested the DSB to refer the matter to arbitration, in accordance with Article 22.6
of the DSU.  The US claimed that the principles and procedures of Article 22.3 had not been
followed.  During the DSB meeting on 18 January 2002, the parties indicated, however, that
they were engaged in constructive negotiations and were hopeful of finding a mutually
satisfactory solution.  On 25 February 2002, the US submitted a status report regardingimplementation of the DSB recommendations and rulings.  On 26 February 2002, the parties
requested the arbitrator to suspend the arbitration proceeding, while noting that the
proceeding may be reactivated at the request of either party after 1 March 2002.
At the DSB meeting on 17 April 2002, the US presented a status report on its progress in
implementing the DSB's recommendations and rulin gs.  The US indicated that it was engaged
in discussions with the EC to find a positive and mutually acceptable solution to the dispute.
The EC expressed its concern about the US' sl ow progress in implementation and requestedWT/DS/OV/7
Page 138
the US to provide more information in its next status report.  Australia also expressed its
concern about the delay and requested that any compensatory arrangement between the
parties must be applied on a non-discriminatory basis.
39. WT/DS161 and WT/DS169 Korea – Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled, and
Frozen Beef
Complaints by the United States and Australia.  At the DSB meeting of 2 February 2001,
Korea announced that it had already implemented some elements of the DSB's
recommendations and that in order to complete the process it would need a reasonable period
of time. On 19 April 2001, the parties to the dispute notified the DSB that they had mutually
agreed that the reasonable period of time shall be 8 months, and was thus to expire on
10 September 2001.
At the DSB meeting on 25 September 2001, Korea announced that it had implemented the
DSB's recommendation by the deadline, i.e. 10 September.  The US indicated that it will
continue to work with Korea to ensure that th e replacement measures resulted in full market
access for US beef.
40. WT/DS166 – United States – Definitive Safe guard Measure on Imports of Wheat Gluten
from the European Communities
Complaint by the European Communities.  At the DSB meeting of 16 February 2001, the US
announced that it intended to implement the recommendations and rulings contained in thepanel and Appellate Body reports. On 20 March 2001, the EC requested that the reasonable
period of time for implementation be determined by binding arbitration pursuant to
Article 21.3(c) DSU. On 10 April 2001, the parties to the dispute notified the DSB that they
had mutually agreed that the reasonable period of time shall be four months and 14 days, that
is from 19 January 2001 to 2 June 2001.
41. WT/DS170 – Canada – Patent Protection Term
Complaint by the United States.  At the DSB meeting of 23 October 2000, Canada stated that
it was its intention to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings. Canada said that it
would require a reasonable period of time for implementation and that it would consult with
the United States on this matter. On 15 December 2000, the US requested that the reasonable
period of time for implementation by Canada be determined by binding arbitration pursuant toArticle 21.3(c) of the DSU. The arbitrator circulated his report on 28 February 2001. He
decided that the reasonable period of time in this case was 10 months and was thus to expire
on 12 August 2001.
42. WT/DS176 – United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act
Complaint by the European Communities and its member States.  At the DSB meeting on
19 February 2002, the US stated that it needed a reasonable period of time to comply with the
rulings and recommendations of the DSB.  On 28 March 2002, the US and the EC informed
the DSB that they have reached a mutual agreement on the reasonable period of time for the
US to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.  The reasonable period oftime will expire on 31 December 2002, or on the date on which the current session of the US
Congress adjourns, and in no event later than 3 January 2003.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 139
43. WT/DS177 and WT/DS178 – United States – Safeguard Measure on Imports of Fresh,
Chilled or Frozen Lamb from New Zealand
Complaints by New Zealand and Australia.  At the DSB meeting of 20 June 2001, the US
recalled that on 14 June 2001 it had submitted in writing to the DSB its intentions with
respect to the implementation in this case and sa id that it intended to implement the DSB's
recommendations in a manner that would respect its WTO obligations.  The US further stated
that it would need a reasonable period of time for implementation and, for that reason, it
would enter into discussions with the complaining parties.  On 27 September 2001, the US
informed the DSB of its decision to implement the recommendations of the DSB by ending
the safeguard measure effective on 15 November 2001.  On 28 September 2001, Australia
and New Zealand agreed that the reasonable period of time for implementation would expire
on 15 November 2001.
44. WT/DS179 – United States – Anti-Dumping Mea sures on Stainless Steel Plate in Coils
and Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from Korea
Complaint by Korea  At the DSB meeting of 1 March 2001, the US stated its intention to
implement the DSB's recommendations and indicated that it would need a reasonable periodof time to do so. on 26 April 2001, the parties to the dispute notified the DSB that they had
mutually agreed that the reasonable period of time shall be 7 months and shall thus expire on
1 September 2001.
At the DSB's meeting of 10 September 2001, the US announced that it had implemented the
DSB's recommendation on 1 September 2001.  At that meeting, Korea acknowledged the
implementation.
45. WT/DS184 – United States – Anti-Dumping  Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel
Products from Japan
Complaint by Japan.  On 20 November 2001, Japan requested that the reasonable period of
time for implementation of the DSB's recommendations be determined by binding arbitration
under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU.  Pending the appointment of the arbitrator, Japan and the
US agreed to extend the time-period under that provision.  They agreed that the award of the
arbitrator is to be made no later than 19 February 2002.  On 19 February 2002, the arbitrator
circulated his award.  The arbitrator concluded that the reasonable period of time for
implementation by the United States of the DSB's recommendations was 15 months from 23August 2001.  Accordingly, this period will expire on 23 November 2002.
46. WT/DS189 – Argentina – Definitive Anti-Dum ping Measures on Imports of Ceramic
Floor Tiles from Italy
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 20 December 2001, the European
Communities and Argentina informed the DSB that they have mutually agreed a reasonable
period of time of 5 months to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB, i.e.
from 5 November 2001 until 5 April 2002.
At the DSB meeting of 22 May 2002, Argentina announced that on 24 April 2002, the
Ministry of Production had enacted Resolution 76/02 revoking the anti-dumping measures at
issue in this case.  With the publication of this Resolution, Argentina considered that it had
now fully implemented the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute.  The EC
welcomed Argentina's prompt implementation in this case.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 140
47. WT/DS192 – United States – Transitional Safeguard Measure on Combed Cotton Yarn
from Pakistan
Complaint by Pakistan.  At the DSB meeting of 21 November 2001, the US declared that on 8
November 2001 the Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreement had directed the
US Customs Services to eliminate the limit on imports of combed cotton yarn from Pakistan.The US indicated that, through this action, effective from 9 November 2001, it had
implemented the DSB's recommendations
48. WT/DS202 – United States – Definitive Sa feguard Measures on Imports of Circular
Welded Carbon Quality Line Pipe
Complaint by Korea.  At the DSB meeting on 5 April 2002, the US expressed its intention to
implement the DSB's recommendations and indica ted that it would enter into consultations
with Korea to determine a reasonable period of time for implementation.  At the DSB meeting
on 17 April 2002, Korea expressed concern about the lack of any proposal from the US
regarding a reasonable period of time for compliance.  The US stated that they would be
proposing a reasonable period of time as soon as possible.  On 29 April 2002, Korea
requested the DSB that the "reasonable period of time" be determined by binding arbitrationpursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU.  On 13 May 2002, Korea requested the Director-
General to appoint an arbitrator.  On 23 May 2002, the Director-General appointed an
arbitratror.
49. WT/DS222 – Canada – Export Credits and Loan Guarantees for Regional Aircraft
Complaint by Brazil.  At the DSB meeting on 8 March 2002, Canada stated that it was
considering its options on how best to implement the recommendations and rulings of the
DSB.
On 23 May 2002, on the grounds that that Canada had failed to implement the
recommendations of the DSB within the 90-day time-period granted by the DSB, Brazil
requested authorization to suspend concessions pursuant to Article 22.2 of the DSU.  Brazil
proposed that the suspension of concessions take s the form of some or all of the following
countermeasures:
• suspension of its obligations under article 6(a) of Article VI GATT to determine the
effect of subsidization under EC Cana da Account and EDC Corporate Account
programmes;
• suspension of application of obligations under the Agreement on Import licencing
procedures relating to licensing requirement on imports from Canada; and
• suspension of tariff concessions and related obligations under GATT 1994
concerning those products in the list attached to Brazil's communication of 23 May
2002.
At the DSB meeting on 3 June 2002, Brazil and Canada informed the DSB that they had
reached an agreement in this matter.  Under the terms of the agreement, the parties agreed that
it would in no way prejudice the right of Brazil to request authorization to take appropriate
countermeasures under Article 4.10  of the SC M Agreement and Article 22.2 of the DSU, nor
affect the relevant time periods under the DSU.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 141
VII. SETTLED OR INACTIVE CASES
A. MUTUALLY AGREED SOLUTIONS
1. WT/DS5 – Korea - Measures Concerning the Shelf-life of Products
Complaint by the United States.  On 3 May 1995, the US requested consultations with Korea in
respect of requirements imposed by Korea on imports from the US which had the effect ofrestricting imports.  The US alleged violations of  Articles III and XI of GATT, Articles 2 and 5
of the SPS Agreement, Article 2 of the TBT Agreement, and Article 4 of the Agreement on
Agriculture.  The parties notified a mutually acceptable solution to this dispute on 31 July 1995.
2. WT/DS6 – United States - Imposition of Import Duties on Automobiles from Japan
under Sections 301 and 304 of the Trade Act of 1974
Complaint by Japan.  On 19 July 1995, the parties notified settlement of this dispute.  Japan had
alleged that the import surcharges violated GATT Articles I and II.
3. WT/DS7, WT/DS12 and WT/DS 14 – European Communities - Trade Description of
Scallops
Complaints by Canada, Peru and Chile.  The complaint concerned a French Government Order
laying down the official name and trade descrip tion of scallops. Complainants claimed that this
Order will reduce competitiveness on the French market as their product will no longer be able
to be sold as "Coquille Saint-Jacques" although there is no difference between their scallops and
French scallops in terms of colour, size, texture,  appearance and use, i.e. it is claimed they are
"like products".  Violations of GATT Articles I and III and TBT Article 2 were alleged.
A panel was established at the request of Canada on 19 July 1995.  A joint panel was
established on 11 October 1995 at the request of Peru and Chile on the same subject.  The two
panels concluded their substantive work, but suspended the proceedings pursuant to
Article 12.12 of the DSU in May 1996 in view of the consultations held among the partiesconcerned towards a mutually agreed solution. Th e parties notified a mutually agreed solution
to the DSB on 5 July 1996. Brief panel reports noting the settlement were circulated to
Members on 5 August 1996 in accordance with th e provisions of Article 12.7 of the DSU.
4. WT/DS19 – Poland - Import Regime for Automobiles
Complaint by India.  This request for consultations, dated 28 September 1995, concerns
Poland's preferential treatment of the EC in its  tariff scheme on automobiles.  On 16 July 1996,
both parties notified a mutually agreed solution to the DSB.
5. WT/DS20 – Korea - Measures Concerning Bottled Water
Complaint by Canada.  In this request for consultations dated 8 November 1995, Canada
claimed that Korean regulations on the shelf-life and physical treatment (disinfection) of bottled
water were inconsistent with GATT Articles III and XI, SPS Articles 2 and 5 and TBT Article
2.  At the DSB meeting on 24 April 1996, the parties to the dispute announced that they reached
a settlement.
6. WT/DS21 – Australia - Measures Affect ing the Importation of Salmonids
Complaint by the United States.  This request for consultations, dated 17 November 1995,
concerns the same regulation alleged to be in violation of the WTO Agreements in WT/DS18,WT/DS/OV/7
Page 142
in respect of which the reports of the panel a nd Appellate Body have already been adopted and
are awaiting implementation.  On 11 May 1999, th e United States requested the establishment
of a panel.  At its meeting on 16 June 1999, the DSB established a panel.  Canada, the EC,
Hong Kong/China, India and Norway reserved th eir third party rights. At the request of the
complainants, the Panel agreed on 8 November 1999 to suspend its work, pursuant to Article12.12 of the DSU, until such time as the panelists have completed their work in the ongoing
proceeding requested by Canada pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU (WT/DS18) or for eleven
months, whichever is the earlier.  On 29 March 2000, the panel agreed to a request by the US,
pursuant to Article 12.12 of the DSU, to suspend its work for a period of one month, i.e. until 29
April 2000.  On 12 May 2000, the panel agreed to a request by the US to suspend its work for
an additional period of time, which will expire on 17 July 2000. On 27 October 2000, the parties
to the dispute notified a mutually satis factory solution on the matter to the DSB.
7. WT/DS28 – Japan - Measures Concerning Sound Recordings
Complaint by the United States.  This request, dated 9 February 1996, is the first WTO dispute
settlement case involving the TRIPS Agreement.  The United States claims that Japan's
copyright regime for the protection of intellectual property in sound recordings is inconsistentwith, inter alia, the TRIPS Agreement Article  14 (protection of performers, producers of
phonograms and broadcasting organizations).  On January 24 1997, both parties informed the
DSB that they had reached a mutually satisfactory solution to the dispute.
8. WT/DS35 – Hungary - Export Subsidies in Respect of Agricultural Products
Complaint by Argentina, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Thailand and the United States.
This request, dated 27 March 1996, claims that Hungary violated the Agreement on Agriculture
(Article 3.3 and Part V) by providing export subsidies in respect of agricultural products not
specified in its Schedule, as well as by provid ing agricultural export subsidies in excess of its
commitment levels. On 9 January 1997, Argentina, Australia, New Zealand and the UnitedStates requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 25 February 1997 the DSB
established a panel.  Canada, Japan, Thailand and Uruguay reserved their third-party rights to
the dispute.  At the DSB meeting on 30 July 1997, Australia, on behalf of all the complainants,
notified the DSB that the parties to the disput e had reached a mutually agreed solution, which
required Hungary to seek a waiver of certain of  its WTO obligations.  Pending adoption of the
waiver, the complaint was not formally withdrawn.
9. WT/DS36 – Pakistan - Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical
Products
Complaint by the United States.  In its request for consultations dated 30 April 1996, the United
States claimed that the absence in Pakistan of (i) either patent protection for pharmaceutical and
agricultural chemical products or a system to permit the filing of applications for patents on
these products and (ii) a system to grant exclusive marketing rights in such products, violates
TRIPS Agreement Articles 27, 65 and 70.   On 4 July 1996, the United States requested the
establishment of a panel.  The DSB considered the request at its meeting on 16 July 1996, but
did not establish a panel due to Pakistan's obj ection.  At the DSB meeting on 25 February 1997,
both parties informed the DSB that they had reach ed a mutually agreed solution to the dispute
and that the terms of the agreement were bein g drawn up, and would be communicated to the
DSB once finalized.  On 28 February 1997, the terms of the agreement were communicated to
the Secretariat.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 143
10. WT/DS37 – Portugal - Patent Protection  under the Industrial Property Act
Complaint by the United States. This request for consultations dated 30 April 1996, concerned
Portugal's term of patent protection under its I ndustrial Property Act.  The US claimed that the
provisions in that Act with respect to exis ting patents were inconsistent with Portugal's
obligations under the TRIPS Agreement. Violations under Articles 33, 65 and 70 were alleged.On 3 October 1996, both parties notified a mutually agreed solution to the DSB.
11. WT/DS40 – Korea - Laws, Regulations and Pr actices in the Telecommunications Sector
Complaint by the European Communities.  This request for consultations, dated 9 May 1996,
concerns  the laws, regulations and practices in  the telecommunications sector.  The EC claims
that the procurement practices of the Korean  telecommunications sector (Korea Telecom and
Dacom) discriminate against foreign suppliers.  The EC also claims that the Korean governmenthas favoured US suppliers under two bilateral telecommunications agreements between Korea
and the US. Violations of GATT Articles I, III and XVII are alleged.  On 22 October 1997, the
parties notified the Secretariat of a mutually agreed solution.
12. WT/DS42 – Japan - Measures Concerning Sound Recordings
Complaint by the European Communities.  This request for consultations, dated 24 May 1996,
concerns the intellectual property protection of sound recordings under GATT Article XXII:1.
Violations of Articles 14.6 and 70.2 of the TRIPS Agreement are alleged.  Earlier, the United
States requested consultations with Japan on the same issue (WT/DS28), in which the EC
joined.  On 7 November 1997, both parties notified a mutually agreed solution.
13. WT/DS43 – Turkey - Taxation of Foreign Film Revenues
Complaint by the United States.  This request  for consultations, dated 12 June 1996, concerns
Turkey's taxation of revenues generated from the showing of foreign films.  Violation of GATT
Article III is alleged.  On 9 January 1997, the United States requested the establishment of  apanel.  At its meeting on 25 February 1997, the DSB established a panel.  Canada reserved its
third-party rights to the dispute.  On 14 Ju ly 1997, both parties notified the DSB of a mutually
agreed solution.
14. WT/DS72 – European Communities - Measures Affecting Butter Products
Complaint by New Zealand.  This request, date d 24 March 1997, is in respect of decisions by
the EC and the United Kingdom's Customs and Ex cise Department, to the effect that New
Zealand butter manufactured by the ANMIX butter-making process and the spreadable butter-
making process be classified so as to be excluded from eligibility for New Zealand's country-
specific tariff quota established by the European Communities' WTO Schedule.  New Zealand
alleges violations of Articles II, X and XI of GATT, Article 2 of the TBT Agreement, and
Article 3 of the Agreement on Import Licensi ng Procedures.  On 6 November 1997, New
Zealand requested the establishment of a panel.  The DSB established a panel on 18 November
1997.  The US reserved its third-party rights. At the request of the complainants, dated
24 February 1999, the Panel agreed, pursuant to Ar ticle 12.12 of the DSU, to suspend the panel
proceedings.  In a communication dated 11 November 1999, the parties notified a mutually
agreed solution to this dispute.
15. WT/DS73 – Japan - Procurement of a Navigation Satellite
Complaint by the European Communities.  This request, dated  26 March 1997, is in respect of
a procurement tender published by the Ministry of Transport (MoT) of Japan to purchase aWT/DS/OV/7
Page 144
multi-functional satellite for Air Traffic Management.  The EC contends that the specifications
in the tender were not neutral but referred explic itly to US specifications.  This meant, the EC
contends, that European bidders could effectively not participate in the tender.  The EC alleges
inconsistency of this tender with Annex I of  Appendix I of Japan's commitments under the
Government Procurement Agreement (GPA). The EC  also alleges violations of Articles VI(3)
and XII(2) of the GPA.  On 31 July 1997, the EC notified the Secretariat that a mutually agreed
solution had been reached with Japan in this dispute.  On 19 February 1998, the two parties
communicated the text of their agreement to the DSB.
16. WT/DS74 – Philippines - Measures Affecting Pork and Poultry
Complaint by the United States.  This request, dated 1 April 1997, is in respect of the
implementation by the Philippines of its tari ff-rate quotas for pork and poultry.  The US
contends that the Philippines' implementation of these tariff-rate quotas, in particular the delays
in permitting access to the in-quota quantities a nd the licensing system used to administer
access to the in-quota quantities, appears to be inconsistent with the obligations of the
Philippines under Articles III, X, and XI of GATT 1994, Article 4 of the Agreement on
Agriculture, Articles 1 and 3 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Proce dures, and Articles 2
and 5 of TRIMs.  The US further contends that theses measures appear to nullify or impair
benefits accruing to it directly or indirectly under cited agreements.  On 12 March 1998, the
parties communicated a mutually agreed solution to their dispute.
17. WT/DS83 – Denmark - Measures Affecting the Enforcement of Intellectual Property
Rights
Complaint by the United States.  This request , dated 14 May 1997, is in respect of Denmark's
alleged failure to make provisional measures available in the context of civil proceedings
involving intellectual property rights.  The US contends that this failure violates Denmark's
obligations under Articles 50, 63 and 65 of the TR IPS Agreement.  On 7 June 2001, the parties
to the dispute notified to the DSB a mu tually satisfactory solution on the matter.
18. WT/DS85 – United States - Measures Af fecting Textiles and Apparel Products
Complaint by the European Communities.  This request, dated 23 May 1997, is in respect of
changes to US rules of origin for textiles and apparel products.  The EC alleges that the US has
introduced changes to its rules of origin for text ile and apparel products, which affect exports of
EC fabrics, scarves and other flat textile products  to the US. As a result, the EC alleges that EC
products are no longer recognised in the US as be ing of EC origin and lose the free access to the
US market that they had hitherto enjoyed.  The EC contends that these changes in US rules of
origin are in violation of the obligations of  the US under Articles 2.4, 4.2 and 4.4 of the ATC,
Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Rules of Origi n, Article III of GATT 1994, and Article 2 of the
TBT Agreement.  On 11 February 1998, the two parties notified their mutually agreed solution.
19. WT/DS86 – Sweden - Measures Affecting th e Enforcement of Intellectual Property
Rights
Complaint by the United States.  This request, dated 28 May 1997, is in respect of Sweden's
alleged failure to make provisional measures available in the context of civil proceedings
involving intellectual property rights.  The US contends that this failure violates Sweden's
obligations under Articles 50, 63 and 65 of the TR IPS Agreement.  In a communication dated 2
December 1998, the two parties notified a mutually agreed solution to this dispute.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 145
20. WT/DS91 – India - Quantitative Restrictions  on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and
Industrial Products
Complaint by Australia.  This request, dated 16 July 1997, raises the same issues in respect of
India's quantitative restrictions on imports of ag ricultural, textile and industrial products as in
the request by the US in DS90.  On 23 March 1998, the two parties notified a mutually agreedsolution.
21. WT/DS92 – India - Quantitative Restrictions  on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and
Industrial Products
Complaint by Canada.  This request, dated 16 July 1997, raises the same issues in respect of
India's quantitative restrictions on imports of ag ricultural, textile and industrial products as in
the requests by the US (DS90) and Australia  (DS91).  On 25 March 1998, the two parties
notified a mutually agreed solution.
22. WT/DS93 – India - Quantitative Restrictions  on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and
Industrial Products
Complaint by New Zealand.  This request, dated 16 July 1997, raises the same issues in respect
of India's quantitative restrictions on imports of agricultural, textile and industrial products as in
the requests by the US (DS90), Australia (DS91) and Canada (D S92).  However, New Zealand
makes an additional claim for nullification and impairment of benefits accruing to it under
GATT 1994. In a letter dated 14 September 1998, but communicated to the Secretariat  on
1 December 1998, the two parties notified a mutually agreed solution to this dispute.
23. WT/DS94 – India - Quantitative Restrictions  on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and
Industrial Products
Complaint by Switzerland.  This request, dated 18 July 1997, raises the same issues in respect of
India's quantitative restrictions on imports of ag ricultural, textile and industrial products as in
the requests by the US (DS90), Australia (DS 91), Canada (DS92), a nd New Zealand (DS93).
However, Switzerland does not invoke the Agreement on Agriculture.  On 23 February 1998,
the two parties notified a mutually agreed solution.
24. WT/DS96 – India - Quantitative Restrictions  on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and
Industrial Products
Complaint by the European Communities.  This request, dated 18 July 1997, raises the same
issues in respect of India's quantitative restri ctions on imports of agricultural, textile and
industrial products as in the requests by the US  (DS90), Australia (DS 91), Canada (DS92), New
Zealand (DS93), and Switzerland (D S94).  In addition, the EC is also alleging violations of
Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the SPS Agreement.  On 7 April 1998, the two parties notified a mutually
agreed solution.
25. WT/DS99 – United States - Anti-Dumping  Duty on Dynamic Random Access Memory
Semiconductors (DRAMS) of One Megabit or Above from Korea
Complaint by Korea.  This request, dated 14 August 1997, is in respect of a decision of the US
Department of Commerce (DoC) not to revo ke the anti-dumping duty on dynamic random
access memory semi-conductors (DRAMS) of one megabyte or above originating from Korea.
Korea contends that the DoC's decision was ma de despite the finding that the Korean DRAM
producers have not dumped their products for a peri od of more than three and a half consecutive
years, and despite the existence of evidence demonstrating conclusively that Korean DRAMWT/DS/OV/7
Page 146
producers will not engage in dumping DRAMS in  the future.  Korea considered that these
measures are in violation of Articles  6 and 11 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
At its meeting on 16 January 1998, the DSB established a panel.  The Panel found the measures
complained of to be in violation of Article 11.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  The report ofthe Panel was circulated on 29 January 1999. Korea requested that this matter be referred to the
original panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DS U.  Following adoption of the panel report by
the DSB, Korea submitted a request to the effect th at the matter be referred to the original panel
pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU.  At its meeting on 25 April 2000, the DSB agreed to
reconvene the original panel pursuant to Article  21.5 of the DSU.  The EC reserved its reserved
its third-party rights. 19 September 2000, Korea has requested the Panel to suspend its work,
including the issuance of the interim report, "until further notification" pursuant toArticle 12.12 of the DSU.  The Panel, in a letter sent to the parties on 21 September 2000, has
agreed to this request. At its meeting on 19 March 1999, the DSB adopted the Panel Report. On
20 October 2000, the parties notified the DSB of a mutually satisfactory solution to the
matter, involving the revocation of the antidumping order at issue as the result of a five-year
"sunset" review by the US Department of Commerce.
26. WT/DS102 – Philippines - Measures  Affecting Pork and Poultry
Complaint by the United States.  This request, dated 7 October 1997, is in respect of the same
measures complained of by the US in DS74, but also includes Administrative Order No. 8,
Series of 1997, which purports to amend the orig inal measure complained of in DS74.  On 12
March 1998, the parties communicated a mutually agreed solution to their dispute.
27. WT/DS119 – Australia - Anti-dumping Measures  on Imports of Coated Woodfree Paper
Sheets
Complaint by Switzerland.  This request, dated 20 February 1998, is in respect of the
provisional anti-dumping measures applied on the imports of coated woodfree paper sheets
from Switzerland.  Switzerland contends that th e investigation is not in conformity with
Australia's commitments under Articles 3 and 5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  On 13 May
1998, the two parties notified a mutually agreed solution.
28. WT/DS124 – European Communities - Enforcem ent of Intellectual Property Rights for
Motion Pictures and Television Programs
Complaint by the United States.  This request, dated 30 April 1998, is in respect of the lack of
enforcement of intellectual property rights in Gr eece.  The US claims that a significant number
of TV stations in Greece regularly broadcas t copyrighted motion pictures and television
programs without the authorizat ion of copyright owners.  The US contends that effective
remedies against copyright infringement do not a ppear to be provided or enforced in Greece in
respect of these broadcasts.  The US alleges a violation of Articles 41 and 61 of the TRIPS
Agreement. On 20 March 2001, the parties to the dispute notified a mutually satisfactory
solution on the matter to the DSB.
29. WT/DS125 – Greece - Enforcement of Intellect ual Property Rights for Motion Pictures
and Television Programs
Complaint by the United States.  This request, dated 30 April 1998, is in respect of the same
measures raised against the EC above (DS124) . On 20 March 2001, the parties to the dispute
notified a mutually satisfactory solution on the matter to the DSB.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 147
30. WT/DS151 – United States - Measures Af fecting Textiles and Apparel Products
Complaint by the European Communities.  This dispute, dated 19 November 1998, is in
respect of alleged changes to US rules of origin for textiles and apparel products.  The EC
discloses that this issue was the subject of an earlier request for consultations (WT/DS85), in
respect of which a mutually agreed solution was notified to the DSB, pursuant to Article 3.1of the DSU.  However, the EC contends that the US has not implemented its commitments as
contained in that agreement with the result that, in the EC view, the US is still acting in a
manner inconsistent with its obligations under the WTO.  The dispute concerns changes
allegedly introduced by the US to its rules of origin for textiles and apparel products, which
entered into force on 1 July 1996, which changes adversely affect exports of EC textile
products to the US, in that as a result of these changes EC products are allegedly no longer
recognised in the US as being of EC origin.  The EC alleges violations of Articles 2.4, 4.2 and4.4 of the ATC, Article 2 of the Agreement on Rules of Origin, Article III of GATT 1994,
and Article 2 of the TBT Agreement.  In a communication dated 21 July 2000, the parties
notified a mutually agreed solution to this dispute.
31. WT/DS190 – Argentina – Transitional Sa feguard Measures on Certain Imports of
Woven Fabrics of Cotton and Cotton Mixtures Originating in Brazil
Complaint by Brazil.  This request for a panel, dated 11 February 2000, concerns transitional
safeguard measures applied by Argentina, as of  31 July 1999, against certain imports of
woven fabrics of cotton and cotton mixtures originating in Brazil.  The measures at issue were
applied through Resolution MEyOSP 861/99 of the Ministry of the Economy and PublicWorks and Services of Argentina.  In accordance with Article 6.11 of the Agreement on
Textiles and Clothing, Brazil had referred the matter to the Textiles Monitoring Body (TMB)
for review and recommendations, after consultations requested earlier by Argentina had failed
to produce a mutually satisfactory solution.  At its meeting of 18-22 October 1999, the TMB
conducted a review of the measures implemented by Argentina, having recommended thatArgentina rescind the safeguard measures applied against imports from Brazil.  On 29
November 1999, in accordance with Article 8.10 of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing,
Argentina notified the TMB that it considered itself unable to conform with the
recommendations issued by the TMB.  At its meeting of 13-14 December 1999, the TMB
conducted a review of the reasons given by Argentina and recommended that Argentina
reconsider its position.  The TMB's recommendations notwithstanding, the matter remained
unresolved.  Brazil is of the view that the transitional safeguards applied by Argentina areinconsistent with Argentina's obligations under Articles 2.4, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.7, 6.8, 6.11,
8.9 and 8.10 of the Agreement on Textiles and Cl othing and should, therefore, be rescinded
forthwith.
At its meeting on 20 March 2000, the DSB established a panel.  The EC, Pakistan, Paraguay
and the US reserved their third-party rights.  In a communication dated June 2000, the parties
notified a mutually agreed solution to this dis pute.  Pursuant to the agreement reached, Brazil
retains the right to resume the procedures for the composition of the panel from the point where
they stood at the time the agreement was reached.
32. WT/DS198 – Romania – Measures on Minimum Import Prices
Complaint by the United States.  On 30 May 2000, the US requested consultations with
Romania in respect of Romania's use of minimum import prices for customs valuation
purposes.  The measures at issue were the Customs Code of 1997 (L141/1997), the Ministry
of Finance General Customs Directive (Ordinan ce No. 5, 4 August 1998), and other related
statutes and regulations.  The United States asserted that, pursuant to these measures,
Romania has established arbitrary minimum and maximum import prices for such products asWT/DS/OV/7
Page 148
meat, eggs, fruits and vegetables, clothing, footwear, and certain distilled spirits.  The United
States further asserted that Romania has instituted burdensome procedures for investigating
import prices when the c.i.f. value falls below the minimum import price.  The United States
considered that Romania's measures are inconsistent with its obligations under Articles 1
through 7, and 12 of the Customs Valuation Agreement; general notes 1, 2 and 4 of Annex 1of the Customs Valuation Agreement; Articles II, X, and XI of the GATT 1994; Article 4.2 of
the Agreement on Agriculture; and Articles 2 and 7 of the Agreement on Textiles and
Clothing.
On 26 September 2001, the US and Romania informed the DSB that they had reached a
mutually satisfactory solution pursuant to Article 3.6 of the DSU.
33. WT/DS199 – Brazil – Measures Affecting Patent Protection
Complaint by the United States.  On 30 May 2000, the US requested consultations with Brazil
in respect of those provisions of Brazil's 1996 industrial property law (Law No. 9,279 of 14
May 1996; effective May 1997) and other related measures, which establish a "local working"
requirement for the enjoyability of exclusive patent rights.  The US asserts that the "localworking" requirement can only be satisfied by the local production – and not the importation
– of the patented subject-matter.  More specifically, the US noted that Brazil's "local
working" requirement stipulates that a patent sh all be subject to compulsory licensing if the
subject-matter of the patent is not "worked" in the territory of Brazil.  The US further noted
that Brazil explicitly defines "failure to be worked" as "failure to manufacture or incomplete
manufacture of the product" or "failure to make full use of the patented process".  The US
considered that such a requirement is inconsistent with Brazil's obligations under Articles 27
and 28 of the TRIPS Agreement, and Article III of the GATT 1994.
At its meeting of 1 February 2001, the DSB established a panel. Cuba, the Dominican
Republic, Honduras, India and Japan reserved their third party rights.  On 5 July 2001, the
parties to the dispute notified to the DSB a mutually satisfactory solution on the matter.
34. WT/DS210 – Belgium – Administration of Mea sures Establishing Customs Duties for
Rice
Request by the United States.  On 12 October 2000, the US requested consultations with the
EC concerning the administration by Belgium of laws and regulations establishing thecustoms duties applicable to rice imported from the United States. The United States
considered that:
• Belgium has failed to administer the pertinent laws and regulations in a manner that is
consistent with its WTO obligations, leading to the assessment of duties on rice imported
from the United States in excess of the bound rate of duty, in contravention of Article IIof the GATT 1194;
• Belgium's use of reference prices in the calculation of the applicable import duties would
appear to be inconsistent with Article VII of the GATT 1994 and the Customs Valuation
Agreement;
• Belgium's refusal to recognize widely accepted industry standards associated with the
grading of rice appears to be inconsistent with Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 9 of the
Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade;
• Belgium has failed to administer its customs valuation determinations and its assessment
of tariffs in a transparent manner, thereby impeding trade, and appears to have applied themeasures in a manner that discriminates against rice imported from the United States.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 149
• According to the United States, the measures have restricted imports of rice into Belgium.
Thus, the Belgian measures also appear to be inconsistent with Articles I, X and XI of theGATT 1994 and Article 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture.
• According to the United States, Belgium's meas ures appear to be inconsistent with the
following specific provisions of the identified agreements: Articles I, II, VII, VIII, X andXI of the GATT 1994; Articles 1-6, 7, 10, 14, 16 and Annex I of the Customs Valuation
Agreement; Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade;Article 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture. Belgium's measures also appear to nullify or
impair the benefits accruing to the United States directly or indirectly under the cited
agreements.
On 19 January 2001, the US requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on
1 February 2001, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.  Further to a second request
to establish a panel by the US, the DSB established a panel at its meeting of 12 March 2001.India and Japan reserved their third-party rights.  On 29 May 2001, the US requested the
Director-General to determine the composition of the Panel.  On 7 June 2001, the Panel was
composed.
On 26 July 2001, the US requested the Panel, pursuant to Article 12.12 of the DSU, to
suspend its work until 30 September 2001 in light of on-going consultations between the US
and the EC.  On 27 September, the US requested a further suspension of the Panel from 1 to
9 October 2001.  On 9 October, the US requested to further suspend the work of the Panel
until 1 November 2001.  On 1 November, the US requested to further suspend the work of the
Panel until 16 November 2001.  On 19 November 2001, the US requested the Panel tosuspend its work until 30 November 2001.
On 18 December 2001, the US and the EC informed the DSB that they had reached a
mutually agreed solution pursuant to Article 3.6 of the DSU.
35. WT/DS235 - Slovakia – Safeguar d Measure on Imports of Sugar
Complaint by Poland.  On 11 July 2001, Poland requested consultations with Slovakia
concerning the quantitative restrictions imposed by Slovakia on imports of sugar (tariff
heading 1701).  The imposition of the measure in question was notified to the Committee on
Safeguards and circulated in document G/ SG/N/10/SVK/1.  Poland considered that this
safeguard measure has been imposed in a manner inconsistent with Slovakia's obligations
under the Safeguards Agreement.  According to Poland, it appeared that Slovak authorities
acted inconsistently with various provisions of the Safeguards Agreement, namely,
Article 3.1, Article 4.2(b), Article 5.2(a), Article 7.4, Article 12.1(b), Article 12.1(c) and
Article 12.3
Poland considered that the investigation and the safeguard measure imposed have nullified or
impaired the benefits accruing to Poland directly or indirectly under the Safeguards
Agreement.
On 11 January 2002, the parties notified the DSB that they have reached a mutually agreed
solution within the meaning of Article 3.6 of th e DSU.  Accordingly, Slovakia agreed to a
progressive increase of the level of its quota for imports of sugar from Poland between 2002
and 2004, and Poland agreed to remove its quantitative restriction on imports of butter and
margarine.  Both parties agreed to implement the above by 1 January 2002.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 150
B. OTHERS
1. WT/DS1 – Malaysia - Prohibition of Imports of Polyethylene and Polypropylene
Complaint by Singapore.  This, the first disp ute under the WTO's dispute settlement procedures,
was settled on 19 July 1995, with Singapore's withdrawal of the panel request.
2. WT/DS9 – European Communities - Duties on Imports of Cereals
Complaint by Canada.  Canada requested cons ultations with the EC on 10 July 1995 concerning
EC regulations implementing some of the EC 's Uruguay Round concessions on agriculture,
specifically, regulations which impose a duty on wheat imports based on reference prices rather
than transaction values, with the result that th e duty-paid import price for Canadian wheat will
be greater than the effective intervention price increased by 55% whenever the transaction value
is greater than the representative price.  A panel was established at the DSB meeting on
11 October 1995, but no panelists have been selected until now.
3. WT/DS13 – European Communities - Duties on Imports of Grains
Complaint by the United States.  This request for consultations, dated 19 July 1995, has
potentially broader product coverage than the case brought by Canada (WT/DS9, item 7(5)(a)below) but otherwise concerns much the same  issues.  On 28 September 1995, the US requested
the establishment of a panel to be considered at the meeting of the DSB on 11 October 1995,
but the EC objected to it. The US again requested the establishment of a panel to be considered
at the meeting of the DSB on 3 December 1996, but  later dropped the request at the meeting. On
13 February 1997 the US made a renewed request for the establishment of a panel.  At the DSBmeeting on 20 March 1997, the US withdrew its request  for a panel in this matter.  On 26 March
1997, the US made a fresh request for the establishment of a panel.  On 30 April 1997, the US
informed the Secretariat that it was withdrawing its request for a panel in view of the fact that
the EC had adopted regulations implemen ting an agreement reached on this matter.
4. WT/DS15 – Japan - Measures Affecting the Purchase of Telecommunications
Equipment
Complaint by the European Communities.  This request for consultations, dated 18 August
1995, claims that a 1994 agreement reached betw een the United States and Japan concerning
telecommunications equipment is inconsistent with GATT Articles I:1, III:4 and XVII:1(c), and
nullifies or impairs benefits accruing to the EC.  The United States has joined in the
consultations.  Although there has been no offici al notification, the case appears to have been
settled bilaterally.
5. WT/DS17 – European Communities - Duties on Imports of Rice
Complaint by Thailand.  This request for consultations, dated 3 October 1995, covers more or
less the same grounds as Canadian (WT/DS9) a nd the US (WT/DS13) complaints over the EC
duties on grains  ((5)(a) and 5(3) above).  In addition, Thailand seems to have alleged that the
EC has violated the most-favoured-nation requirement under GATT Article I in their
preferential treatment of basmati  rice from India and Pakistan.  See also the Uruguayan
complaint (WT/DS25).WT/DS/OV/7
Page 151
6. WT/DS23 – Venezuela - Anti-Dumping Investig ation in Respect of Imports of Certain
Oil Country Tubular Goods (OCTG)
Complaint by Mexico dated 5 December 1995.  By a letter dated 6 May 1997, Mexico informed
the Secretariat that Venezuela had terminated the anti-dumping investigation in this matter.
7. WT/DS25 – European Communities - Im plementation of the Uruguay Round
Commitments Concerning Rice
Complaint by Uruguay.  This request for consultations, dated 18 December 1995, seems similar
to the claim by Thailand (WT/DS17).
8. WT/DS32 – United States - Measures Affecting Imports of Women's and Girls' Wool
Coats
Complaint by India.  In a communication dated 14 March 1996, India requested the
establishment of a panel, claiming that the transitional safeguard measures on these textile
products by the United States were inconsistent  with ATC Articles 2, 6 and 8.  A panel was
established in the DSB meeting on 17 April 1996.  However, on 25 April 1996, India requested
"termination of further action in pursuance of  the decision taken by the DSB on 17 April 1996
to establish a panel" in light of the US removal of the safeguard measures on these products,
which came into effect from 24 April 1996.
9. WT/DS38 – United States - The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act
Complaint by the European Communities. On 3 May 1996 the European Communities
requested consultations with the United States  concerning the Cuban Liberty and Democratic
Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 and other legislation enacted by the US Congress
regarding trade sanctions against Cuba.  The EC claims that US trade restrictions on goods of
Cuban origin, as well as the possible refusal of visas and the exclusion of non-US nationals
from US territory, are inconsistent with the US obligations under the WTO Agreement.
Violations of GATT Articles I, III, V, XI and XIII, and GATS Articles I, III, VI, XVI and XVII
are alleged. The EC also alleges that even if these measures by the US may not be in violation
of specific provisions of GATT or GATS, they nevertheless nullify or impair its expected
benefits under GATT 1994 and GATS and impede th e attainment of the objectives of GATT
1994. The European Communities requested the establishment of a panel on 3 October 1996.
The DSB established a panel at its meeting on 20 November 1996.  At the request of the EC,
dated 21 April 1997, the Panel suspended its work.  The Panel's authority lapsed on 22 April1998, pursuant to Article 12.12 of the DSU.
10. WT/DS39 – United States - Tariff Inc reases on Products from the European
Communities
Complaint by the European Communities.  In its request for consultations, dated 17 April 1996,
the EC claimed that the measures taken unde r the Presidential Proclamation No. 5759 of 24
December 1987 (retaliation against the "hormones" directive), which resulted in tariff increases
on products from the European Communities, are in consistent with GATT Articles I, II and
XXIII, as well as DSU Articles 3, 22 and 23.  On 19 June 1996, the EC requested the
establishment of a panel.  In its request, the EC further claimed that the United States apparentlyfailed to "ensure the conformity of its laws, regulations and administrative procedures with its
obligations" under the WTO, with  respect to the application of Section 301 of the 1974 Trade
Act in this case (WTO Agreem ent Article XVI:4).  The United States withdrew the measure on
15 July 1996, and the EC decided not to pursue its panel request, reserving its rights to
reconvene, if necessary, a further meeting of the DSB at an early date.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 152
11. WT/DS49 – United States - Anti-Dumping In vestigation Regarding Imports of Fresh or
Chilled Tomatoes from Mexico
Complaint by Mexico.  On 1 July 1996, Mexico requested consultations with the United States
regarding the anti-dumping investigation on fre sh and chilled tomatoes imported from Mexico
under Article 17.3 of the Anti-dumping Agreement.  Violations of GATT Articles VI and X as
well as Articles 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7.1 of the Anti-dumping Agreement are alleged.  Mexico claims
this to be a case of urgency, where the e xpedited procedures under Articles 4.8 and 4.9 of the
DSU are applicable. US Commerce Department offi cial releases indicate that the case has been
settled.
12. WT/DS57 – Australia - Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Import Credit Scheme
Complaint by the United States.  This request, dated 7 October 1996, concerns a complaint by
the United States against subsidies being granted and maintained by Australia on leather
products under the TCF scheme. A violation of Ar ticle 3 of the SCM Agreement is alleged. The
US is also invoking Article 30 of the SCM Ag reement to the extent that it incorporates by
reference Article XXIII:1 of GATT 1994. An official release from the USTR in Washington on25 November 1996 indicates that the case has been settled.
13. WT/DS77 – Argentina - Measures Affecting Textiles and Clothing
Complaint by the European Communities.  This request dated 17 April 1997, is in respect of a
range of specific duties on textiles and clothing  which have allegedly resulted in increased
duties and have led to applied tariffs that exceed the 35% binding made by Argentina.  The EC
contends that these measures are a violation of Argentina's commitments under Article II of
GATT 1994, and also of Article 7 of the ATC.  See similar US complaint in DS56 pending
before a panel.  On 10 September 1997, the EC requested the establishment of a panel.  At its
meeting on 16 October 1997, the DSB established a panel.  The US reserved its third-partyrights.  The Panel suspended its work at the request of the EC on 29 July 1998.  Pursuant to
DSU Article 12.12, the panel's authority lapsed on 29 July 1999, 12 months having passed since
the suspension of the panel's work.
14. WT/DS88 – United States - Measure Affecting Government Procurement
Complaint by the European Communities.  This request, dated 20 June 1997, is in respect of an
Act enacted by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on 25 June 1996, entitled Act regulatingState Contracts with companies doing Business with Burma (Myanmar).  The Act provides, in
essence, that public authorities of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts are not allowed to
procure goods or services from any persons w ho do business with Burma.  The EC contends
that, as Massachusetts is covered under the US schedule to the GPA,  this violates Articles
VIII(B), X and XIII of the GPA Agreement.  The EC also contends that the measure alsonullifies benefits accruing to it under the GPA, as well as impeding the attainment of the
objectives of the GPA, including that of main taining balance of rights and obligations.  On
8 September 1998, the EC requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on
21 October 1998, the DSB established a panel.  Japa n reserved its third-party right.  The DSB
agreed that pursuant to Article 9.1 of the DSU,  a single panel would examine this dispute
together with DS95 below. At the request of  the complainants, dated 10 February 1999, the
Panel agreed, pursuant to Article 12.12 of the DSU, to suspend the panel proceedings (which
also applies to DS95 below).  Since the panel wa s not requested to resume its work, pursuant to
Article 12.12 of the DSU, the authority for establ ishment of the panel lapsed as of 11 February
2000 (which also applies to DS95 below).WT/DS/OV/7
Page 153
15. WT/DS89 – United States - Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Colour Television
Receivers from Korea
Complaint by Korea.  This request, dated 10 July 1997, is in respect of the imposition of anti-
dumping duties by the US on imports of colour television receivers (CTVs) from Korea.  Korea
contends that the US has for the past twelve  years maintained an anti-dumping order for
Samsung's CTVs despite the absence of dumping and the cessation of exports from Korea,
without examining the necessity of continuing to  impose such duties.  Korea contends that the
US actions violate Articles VI.1 and VI .6(a) of GATT 1994, and Articles 1, 2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.6, 4.1,
5.4, 5.8, 5.10, 11.1 and 11.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  On 6 November 1997, Korea
requested the establishment of a panel.  On 5 January 1998, Korea informed the DSB that it was
withdrawing its request for a pane l but reserving its right to reintroduce the request.  At the DSB
meeting on 22 September 1998, Korea announced th at it was definitively withdrawing the
request for a panel because the imposition of anti-dumping duties had now been revoked.
16. WT/DS95 – United States - Measure Affecting Government Procurement
Complaint by Japan.  This request, dated 18 July 1997, is in respect of the same issued raised by
the EC in DS88 above. On 8 September 1998, Japan requested the establishment of a panel.  Atits meeting on 21 October 1998, the DSB established a panel.  The DSB agreed that pursuant to
Article 9.1 of the DSU, a single panel would ex amine this dispute together with DS88 above.
17. WT/DS101 – Mexico - Anti-Dum ping Investigation of High-Fructose Corn Syrup
(HFCS) from the United States
Complaint by the United States.  On 4 September 1997, the US requested consultations with
Mexico in respect of an anti-dumping investig ation of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) from
the United States conducted by Mexico, resulting in a preliminary determination of dumping
and injury, and the consequent imposition of provisional measures on imports of HCFS from
the United States.  The US alleged violati ons of Articles 5.5, 6.1.3, 6.2, 6.4 and 6.5 of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement.
On 8 May 1998, the US requested consultations in respect of the same anti-dumping
investigation which had resulted in the imposition of definitive anti-dumping measures on these
imports from the United States.  See WT/DS132 and WT/DS132/RW.
18. WT/DS106 – Australia - Subsidies Provided to Producers and Exporters of Automotive
Leather
Complaint by the United States.  This reque st, dated 10 November 1997, is in respect of
Australia's alleged prohibited subsidies provided to its producers and exporters of automotive
leather.  The US contends that these measures by Australia violate Article 3 of the Subsidies
Agreement.  On 9 January 1998, the United States re quested the establishment of a panel.  At its
meeting on 22 January 1998, the DSB established a panel in accordance with the accelerated
procedure under the Subsidies Agreement.  On 11 June 1998, the US withdrew its request for a
panel. See also WT/DS126.
19. WT/DS181 – Colombia – Safeguard Measure on Imports of Plain Polyester Filaments
from Thailand
Complaint by Thailand.  This request for a panel, dated 7 September 1999 concerns a
unilateral restraint allegedly imposed by Colombia against imports of plain polyester
filaments from Thailand.  Colombia's safeguard measure is alleged to be inconsistent with
Article 2 of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC) regarding the application of aWT/DS/OV/7
Page 154
transitional safeguard mechanism and with Article 2 of the ATC regarding the introduction
and application of restrictions by Members.  The safeguard measures imposed by Colombia
on 26 October 1998 have been subject to the two-stage examination and review procedures by
the Textiles Monitoring Body (TMB).  The TMB recommended at its fiftieth meeting held on
16-19 November 1998 that Colombia rescind the measure.  On 22 December 1998, Colombianotified the TMB of its inability to conform with this TMB recommendation and provided the
TMB with reasons therefor.  At its fifty-second meeting on 18-20 January 1999, the TMB
reviewed the matter and repeated its recommendation to Colombia to rescind the safeguard
measure forthwith.  At the DSB meeting on 27 October 1999, Thailand announced that it was
withdrawing its request for a panel because the Colombian safeguard measure had been
terminated.
20. WT/DS193 - Chile – Measures Affecting th e Transit and Importation of Swordfish
Complaint by the European Communities.  On 19 April 2000, the EC requested consultations
with Chile regarding the prohibition on unloadi ng of swordfish in Chilean ports established
on the basis of Article 165 of the Chilean Fishery Law (Ley General de Pesca y Acuicultura),
as consolidated by the Supreme Decree 430 of 28 September 1991, and extended by Decree598 of 15 October 1999.
The EC asserted that its fishing vessels operating in the South East Pacific are not allowed
under Chilean legislation to unload their swordf ish in Chilean ports either to land them for
warehousing or to transship them onto other vessels.  The EC considered that, as a result,Chile makes transit through its ports impossible for swordfish.  The EC claimed that the
above-mentioned measures are inconsistent with the GATT 1994, and in particular Articles V
and XI thereof.
At its meeting of 12 December 2000, the DSB established a panel further to the request of the
EC.  Australia, Canada, Ecuador, India, Ne w Zealand, Norway, Iceland and the US reserved
their third-party rights.  On 23 March 2001, the parties to the dispute informed the Director-
General of the WTO that they agreed to suspend the process for the constitution of the panel.
21. WT/DS227 – Peru – Taxes on Cigarettes
Complaint by Chile.  On 1 March 2001, Chile requested consultations with Peru concerning
the Peruvian Supreme Decree No. 158-99-EF of 25 September 1999 modifying appendices III
and IV of the General Sales Tax and Selective Consumption Tax Law, which identify the
goods subject to the selective consumption tax. Article 1B of the said Supreme Decree
amends the tax applied to cigarettes made of dark tobacco, standard cigarettes made of bright
tobacco and premium cigarettes made of bright tobacco, setting a different specific tax for
each one of these categories of cigarettes ranging from S/0.025 to S/0.100 per unit.
According to Chile, the difference in the amount  of the tax appears to be contingent only on
the number of countries in which the different commercial brands of cigarettes are marketed –
more than three or less than three – a criterion which is a source of concern for Chile, since it
could signify discrimination against imported cigarettes, from Chile for example, which,
being marketed in more than three countries, are subject to a higher tax than local brand
cigarettes.  In Chile's view, this situation, wh ich is damaging to Chilean cigarette exports to
Peru, could constitute a violation of the GATT 1994 – in particular, but not necessarily
exclusively, of Article III.2 of the GATT 1994 – and of a repeated Appellate Body
jurisprudence in this area.
At its meeting of 24 June 2001, the DSB establishe d a Panel further to Chile's request.  None of
the Members reserved their  third-party rights.WT/DS/OV/7
Page 155
On 12 July 2001, Chile announced its intention to  withdraw the compla int on the grounds that
the contested measure, i.e. the specific selective consumption tax system applied to cigarettes
by Peru, had been amended on 30 June 2001 with the publication of Supreme Decree
No. 128-2001 of the Ministry of the Economy and Finance of Peru, which entered into forceon 1 July 2001.  As from that date, cigarettes are subject to the Peruvian common selective
consumption tax system at a rate of 100 per cent, regardless of their origin, price, type or
quality of tobacco and/or the number of sales markets.  This amendment in the tax regime
applicable to cigarettes was the result of a ruling of the Constitutional Court of Peru on
19 June 2001.
22. WT/DS228 – Chile – Safeguard Measures on Sugar
Complaint by Colombia.  On 19 March 2001, Colombia requested consultations with Chile
concerning definitive safeguard measures relating to sugar.  This request was replaced by that
in dispute WT/DS230 above.
23. WT/DS240 - Romania – Import Prohib ition on Wheat and Wheat Flour
Complaint by Hungary.  On 18 October 2001, Hungary requested consultations with Romania
concerning Romania's Joint Decree of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food Industry and
Forestry No. 119069 (16.07.2001), Ministry of Family and Health No. 495 (18.07.2001) and
the National Consumer Protection Authority No. 1/3687 (19.07.2001) prohibiting the import
of wheat and wheat flour which does not meet certain quality standards.
In particular, Hungary claimed that:
• the import prohibition has been imposed in a manner inconsistent with Romania's
obligations under Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994; and
• the introduction of the abovementioned quality requirements is in breach of Article III:4
of the GATT 1994 because domestically produced products are not subject to the same
quality requirements.
On 30 October 2001, Hungary requested consultations with Romania according to the
urgency procedure provided in Article 4.8 of  the DSU.  On 27 November 2001, Hungary
requested the establishment of a panel.  At its meeting on 10 December 2001, the DSB
deferred the establishment of the panel.  On 10 December 2001, Hungary requested theholding of a special meeting of the DSB in order to establish a panel.  On 20 December 2001,
further to the abrogation by Romania of its le gislation regarding the quality requirements for
imported wheat and wheat flour, Hungary withdrew its request.
__________