RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/DSB/M/58
19 May 1999
(99-2038)
Dispute Settlement Body
15 April 1999
MINUTES OF MEETING
Held in the Centre William Rappard
on 15 April 1999
Chairman:  Mr. Nobutoshi Akao (Japan)
1. Implementation of the recommendations of the DSB
(a) Japan - Measures affecting agricultural products
(b) United States - Anti-dumping duty on dynamic random access memory semiconductors
(DRAMS) of one megabit or above from Korea
The Chairman recalled that in accordance with the DSU provisions, the DSB was required to
keep under surveillance the implementation of recommendations and rulings of the DSB in order to
ensure effective resolution of disputes to the benefit of all Members.  In this respect, Article 21.3 of
the DSU provided that the Member concerned shall inform the DSB, within 30 days after the date of
adoption of the Panel or Appellate Body Report, of its intentions in respect of implementation of the
recommendations and rulings of the DSB.
(a) Japan - Measures affecting agricultural products
The Chairman recalled that on 19 March 1999, the DSB had adopted the Appellate Body
Report on "Japan - Measures Affecting Agricultural Products" and the Panel Report on the same
matter, as modified by the Appellate Body Report.
The representative of Japan reiterated his country's deep regret that its arguments had not
been accepted by the Panel and the Appellate Body.  However, Japan was satisfied that the product
testing contention, which had been advanced by the United States, had been concluded not to provide
sufficient evidence before the Panel to convince it that it achieved Japan's appropriate level of
protection.  Pursuant to Article 21.3 of the DSU, Japan had an obligation to inform the DSB of its
intentions in respect of the DSB's recommendations.  It was Japan's intention to comply with its
obligations under the SPS Agreement.  His Government would conduct the necessary review torespect the DSB's recommendations.  Japan noted that neither the Panel nor the Appellate Body
denied it from taking measures to achieve its appropriate level of protection against the intrusion of
foreign pests and diseases into Japanese territory.  Japan therefore considered it necessary to adopt
new phytosanitary measures to replace the current ones in order to ascertain safety by preventing such
intrusion.  To be ready for such new measures, a certain amount of time would be necessary forconducting scientific and technical examinations.  Japan therefore requested to be granted, in
accordance with Article 21.3 of the DSU, a reasonable period of time for implementing the DSB's
recommendations.  Japan further intended to consult with the United States in order to agree on a
reasonable period of time.WT/DSB/M/58
Page 2
The representative of the United States said that his country welcomed the statement by
Japan.  The United States was interested in engaging constructively with Japan on this matter, and
looked forward to working together to try to reso lve this dispute promptly as envisaged under the
DSU.
The representative of Australia said that his country had an interest in this matter and
expected that implementation would be c onsistent with Article 3.5 of the DSU.
The DSB took note of the statements and of the information provided by Japan regarding its
intention in respect of implementation of the DSB's recommendations.(b) United States - Anti-dumping duty on dynamic random access memory semiconductors
(DRAMS) of one megabit or above from Korea
The Chairman recalled that on 19 March 1999 the DSB had adopted the Panel Report on
"United States - Anti-Dumping Duty on Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors
(DRAMS) of One Megabit or Above from Korea".
The representative of the United States said that his country was pleased that, for the most
part, the Panel had found no inconsistency between the US Administration of the anti-dumping order
on DRAMS from Korea and the US obligations under the WTO.  While the United States had noted at
the 19 March meeting that it had some disagreements with the analysis of the Panel concerning the
revocation standard contained in the regulations of the Department of Commerce, it had indicated thatit would not let these disagreements stand in the wa y of a consensus to adopt the Panel Report that
was of high quality and had reached the right conclusions.  As provided in Article 21.3 of the DSU, it
was now the United States' responsibility to advise  the DSB of its intentions with respect to the
implementation of the DSB's recommendations.  It was the intention of the United States to
implement the DSB's recommendations in the DR AMS dispute in a manner consistent with its
obligations and the Panel's findings.  In this regard, he noted that the Panel had expressly rejected
Korea's request that the Panel suggest revocation of the anti-dumping order as the method of
implementing the Panel's recommendations and rulings.  Instead, the Panel had stated that there was
"a range of possible ways" in which the Panel believed that the United States could appropriately
implement the recommendations.  As envisaged under the DSU, the United States would require a
reasonable period of time to complete the compliance process and would be meeting with Korea to
discuss this matter further.
The representative of Korea said that his delegation welcomed the statement by the United
States confirming its commitment to implement the DSB's recommendations with regard to this
matter.  Korea was interested in receiving detail s of the US implementation plan, and hoped that the
United States would discuss this matter with Korea at the earliest possible date.  In this regard, hisdelegation wished to reiterate several points made at  the 19 March meeting.  Korea maintained that in
order to be in compliance with the DSB's recommendations, the United States should first
immediately revoke the anti-dumping duty order on DRAMS of one megabit or above from Korea,
and second revise its regulation to remove the "not likely" criterion as soon as possible.  The Panel
had found both the DRAMS determination and the anti-dumping duty regulations of the USDepartment of Commerce to be inconsistent with Article 11.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  The
only way in which the United States could comply with this aspect of the Panel's findings and rulings
was to immediately revoke the anti-dumping duty order on DRAMS from Korea.  There was no legal
justification under the DSU for linking the timing of this administrative action to the separate
regulatory action that would be required to amend the revocation regulation.  The United States mightrequire a reasonable period of time to complete the process of amending its revocation regulation.
However, the process should start immediately – in fact, it already should have started - and it should
be completed expeditiously.  His delegation hoped that the United States and Korea would be able toWT/DSB/M/58
Page 3
reach a mutually satisfactory understanding as to the timing and substance of the US implementation
of the DSB's recommendations.  Korea looked forward to receiving details of the US implementation
plan.
The DSB took note of the statements and of the information provided by the United States
regarding its intention in respect of implementation of the DSB's recommendations.
__________