dean22029/WTO_Docs huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES – SECTION 110(5) OF THE US COPYRIGHT ACT
Document: Request by the United States for Arbitration under Article 22.6 of the DSU
Date: 18 January 2002
Document codes: WT/DS160/20; WT/DS160/19.
Complainant: EU
Respondent: U.S.
Third parties: Australia, Brazil, Canada, Japan, Switzerland
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. 9.1  Intellectual Property (TRIPS)

UNITED STATES – SECTION 110(5) OF THE US COPYRIGHT ACT
Request by the United States for Arbitration under Article 22.6 of the DSU
The following communication, dated 17 January 2002, from the Permanent Mission of the
United States to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 22.6
of the DSU.
Regarding the dispute ""
(WT/DS160), my authorities have instructed me to inform you that, pursuant to Article 22.6 of the
Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing Disputes (DSU), the United States objects to the
level of suspension of obligations proposed by the European Communities in document
 The United States also claims that the principles and procedures of Article 22.3 have
not been followed.
Accordingly, as required by Article 22.6 of the DSU, "the matter shall be referred to
arbitration".
KOREA – MEASURES AFFECTING IMPORTS OF FRESH, CHILLED AND FROZEN BEEF
Document: Request to Join Consultations Communication from New Zealand
Date: 15 February 1999
Document codes: WT/DS161/2
Complainant: U.S.
Respondent: South Korea
Third parties: Australia, Canada, New Zealand
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. II, III, X, XI, XVII  GATT 1994Art. 3, 4, 6, 7  AgricultureArt. 1, 3  Import Licensing

KOREA – MEASURES AFFECTING IMPORTS OF FRESH,
CHILLED AND FROZEN BEEF
Request to Join Consultations
Communication from New Zealand
The following communication, dated 11 February 1999, from the Permanent Mission of
New Zealand to the Permanent Mission of Korea, the Permanent Mission of the United States and to
the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated in accordance with Article 4.11 of the
DSU.
Pursuant to paragraph 11 of Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures
Governing the Settlement of Disputes, the Government of New Zealand wishes to notify the
Government of the Republic of Korea that, in light of New Zealand's substantial trade interest, it
desires to be joined in the consultations requested by the United States in a communication circulated
to WTO members on 4 February 1999 (WT/DS 161/1, , a nd )
entitled "".
As noted above, New Zealand has a substantial trade interest in the matter that is the subject
of the requested consultations. In recent years the Republic of Korea has typically been one of
New Zealand's largest markets for beef, with annual exports for the period 1994-98 averaging
approximately 15,000 tonnes.
KOREA – MEASURES AFFECTING IMPORTS OF FRESH, CHILLED AND FROZEN BEEF
Document: Request to Join Consultations Communication from Australia
Date: 15 February 1999
Document codes: WT/DS161/3
Complainant: U.S.
Respondent: South Korea
Third parties: Australia, Canada, New Zealand
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. II, III, X, XI, XVII  GATT 1994Art. 3, 4, 6, 7  AgricultureArt. 1, 3  Import Licensing

KOREA – MEASURES AFFECTING IMPORTS OF FRESH,
CHILLED AND FROZEN BEEF
Request to Join Consultations
Communication from Australia
The following communication, dated 10 February 1999, from the Permanent Mission of
Australia to the Permanent Mission of Korea, the Permanent Mission of the United States and to the
Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated in accordance with Article 4.11 of the DSU.
Pursuant to paragraph 11 of Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures
Governing the Settlement of Disputes, the Government of Australia hereby notifies the Government
of the Republic of Korea that, due to its substantial trade interest, it desires to be joined in the
consultations under Article XXII:1 of GATT 1994 requested by the United States in a communication
circulated to WTO Members on 4 February 1999 () entitled "".
Australia is a major producer and exporter of beef to the Republic of Korea, and therefore has
a substantial trade interest in the Korean beef market. Over the ten-year period 1989 to 1998,
Australia's exports of beef to the Republic of Korea averaged 65,000 tonnes annually.
KOREA – MEASURES AFFECTING IMPORTS OF FRESH, CHILLED AND FROZEN BEEF
Document: Request to Join Consultations Communication from Canada
Date: 17 February 1999
Document codes: WT/DS161/4
Complainant: U.S.
Respondent: South Korea
Third parties: Australia, Canada, New Zealand
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. II, III, X, XI, XVII  GATT 1994Art. 3, 4, 6, 7  AgricultureArt. 1, 3  Import Licensing

KOREA – MEASURES AFFECTING IMPORTS OF FRESH,
CHILLED AND FROZEN BEEF
Request to Join Consultations
Communication from Canada
The following communication, dated 12 February 1999, from the Permanent Mission of
Canada to the Permanent Mission of Korea, the Pe rmanent Mission of the United States and to the
Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated in accordance with Article 4.11 of the DSU.
Pursuant to Article 4.11 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the
Settlement of Disputes, the Government of Canada hereby notifies you of its desire to be joined in the
consultations requested by the Permanent Mission of the United States under Article 4 of the DSU,
Article XXII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, Article 19 of the Agreement on
Agriculture and Article 6 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures in the matter of "Korea -
Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled and Frozen Beef". The 1 February 1999
communication from the Permanent Mission of the United States to the Permanent Mission of the
Republic of Korea was circulated to WTO Members on 4 February 1999 (, ,

Canada has a substantial trade interest in these consultations given that Korea is an important
market for Canadian beef exports. It is Canada's third largest export market for beef, with potential for
expansion in the future. In 1997, Canada exported 4 735 tonnes of beef and veal products to Korea,
valued at $20 million.
KOREA – MEASURES AFFECTING IMPORTS OF FRESH, CHILLED AND FROZEN BEEF
Document: Constitution of the Panel Established at the Request of the United States and Australia Note by the Secretariat
Date: 4 August 1999
Document codes: WT/DS161/6; WT/DS169/6
Complainant: U.S.
Respondent: South Korea
Third parties: Australia, Canada, New Zealand
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. II, III, X, XI, XVII  GATT 1994Art. 3, 4, 6, 7  AgricultureArt. 1, 3  Import Licensing

KOREA – MEASURES AFFECTING IMPORTS OF
FRESH, CHILLED AND FROZEN BEEF
Constitution of the Panel Established
at the Request of the United States and Australia
Note by the Secretariat
1. At its meeting on 26 May 1999 the Dispute Set tlement Body (DSB) established a panel in
accordance with the request made by the United States in document WT/DS/161/5. At its meeting of
26 July 1999, the DSB agreed to Australia's request for the establishment of a panel (WT/DS/169/5)
in the same matter. It also agreed, as provided for in Article 9 of the DSU in respect of multiple
complainants, that the Panel established on 26 May 1999 to examine the complaint by the United
States will also examine Australia's complaint.
2. The parties to the dispute have agreed that the Panel should have standard terms of reference
as follows
"To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by the
United States in document WT/DS/161/5 and by Australia in document WT/DS/169/5, the
matter referred to the DSB by the United States and Australia in those documents and to make
such findings as will assist the DSB in making the recommendations or in giving the rulings
provided for in those agreements".
3. The parties to the dispute agreed on 4 August 1999 to the following composition of the Panel:
Chairperson: Mr. Lars Anell
Members: Mr. Paul Demaret
Mr. Alan Matthews
KOREA – MEASURES AFFECTING IMPORTS OF FRESH, CHILLED AND FROZEN BEEF
Document: Communication from the Chairman of the Panel
Date: 5 May 2000
Document codes: WT/DS161/7; WT/DS169/7
Complainant: U.S.
Respondent: South Korea
Third parties: Australia, Canada, New Zealand
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. II, III, X, XI, XVII  GATT 1994Art. 3, 4, 6, 7  AgricultureArt. 1, 3  Import Licensing

KOREA – MEASURES AFFECTING IMPORTS OF FRESH,
CHILLED AND FROZEN BEEF
Communication from the Chairman of the Panel
The following communication, dated 2 May 2000, addressed to the Dispute Settlement Body
(DSB), is circulated in accordance with Article 12.9 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU).
Article 12.8 of the DSU stipulates that the period in which a panel shall conduct its
examination, from the date that the composition and terms of reference of the panel have been agreed
upon until the date that the final report is issued to the parties shall, as a general rule, not exceed
six months.
Article 12.9 of the DSU states that when a panel considers that it cannot issue its report within
six months, it shall inform the DSB in writing of the reasons for the delay, together with an estimate
of the period within which it will issue its report.
The Panel on " " was
established for all parties1 by the DSB on 26 July 1999 and composed on 4 August 1999.
However, it will not be possible for the Panel to complete its work in six months due to the
large number of complex issues raised by this dispute and the request of the parties to use always the
maximum time periods prescribed in Appendix 3 of the DSU.
The Panel expects to complete its work by 15 June 2000.
It also agreed, as provided for in Article 9 of the DSU in respect of multiple complainants that the Panel
established on 26 May 1999 to examine the complaint by the United States will also examine Australia's
complaint."
KOREA – MEASURES AFFECTING IMPORTS OF FRESH, CHILLED AND FROZEN BEEF
Document: Communication from the Appellate Body
Date: 8 November 2000
Document codes: WT/DS161/9; WT/DS169/9
Complainant: Australia
Respondent: South Korea
Third parties: Canada, New Zealand, U.S.
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. II, III, X, XI, XVII  GATT 1994Art. 3, 4, 6, 7  AgricultureArt. 1, 3  Import Licensing

KOREA – MEASURES AFFECTING IMPORTS OF FRESH,
CHILLED AND FROZEN BEEF
Communication from the Appellate Body
The following communication, dated 8 November 2000, from the Chairman of the Appellate
Body addressed to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated in accordance with
Article 17.5 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes.
I am writing to you pursuant to Article 17.5 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures
Governing the Settlement of Disputes, which stipulates that, as a general rule, the Appellate Body will
circulate its report no later than 60 days after the appellant has formally notified the Dispute
Settlement Body of its decision to appeal. Article 17.5 states, furthermore, that when the
Appellate Body considers that it cannot provide its report within 60 days, it shall inform the DSB in
writing of the reasons for the delay together with an estimate of the period within which it will submit
its report.
Korea 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 in this case on
11 September 2000 with the result that the 60-day period will expire on Friday, 10 November 2000.
Due to the time required for completion and translation of the Report, the Appellate Body will not be
able to circulate its Report by Friday, 10 November 2000. We estimate that the Appellate Body
Report in this appeal will be circulated to WTO Members no later than Monday, 11 December 2000.
KOREA – MEASURES AFFECTING IMPORTS OF FRESH, CHILLED AND FROZEN BEEF
Document: Communication from the Appellate Body
Date: 11 December 2000
Document codes: WT/DS161/10; WT/DS169/10; WT/DS161/AB/R; WT/DS169/AB/R.
Complainant: Australia
Respondent: South Korea
Third parties: Canada, New Zealand, U.S.
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. II, III, X, XI, XVII  GATT 1994Art. 3, 4, 6, 7  AgricultureArt. 1, 3  Import Licensing

KOREA – MEASURES AFFECTING IMPORTS OF FRESH,
CHILLED AND FROZEN BEEF
Communication from the Appellate Body
The following communication, dated 11 December 2000, from Mr. Florentino Feliciano,
Chairman of the Appellate Body, addressed to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is
circulated in accordance with Article 17.5 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing
the Settlement of Disputes.
It is my honour to transmit to you the Report of the Appellate Body in , , It will be
circulated to Members of the later today, 11 December 2000, in
accordance with paragraph 5 of Article 17 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing
the Settlement of Disputes . The three Members of the Appella te Body who served on this appeal
were: Mr. Claus-Dieter Ehlermann, as Presiding Member; Mr. Georges Abi-Saab and myself, as
Members.
KOREA – MEASURES AFFECTING IMPORTS OF FRESH, CHILLED AND FROZEN BEEF
Document: Agreement under Article 21.3(b) of the DSU
Date: 24 April 2001
Document codes: WT/DS161/12; WT/DS169/12
Complainant: Australia
Respondent: South Korea
Third parties: Canada, New Zealand, U.S.
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. II, III, X, XI, XVII  GATT 1994Art. 3, 4, 6, 7  AgricultureArt. 1, 3  Import Licensing

KOREA – MEASURES AFFECTING IMPORTS OF FRESH,
CHILLED AND FROZEN BEEF
Agreement under Article 21.3(b) of the DSU
The following communication, dated 19 April 2001, from the Permanent Missions of
Australia, Korea and the United States to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated
in accordance with Article 21.3(b) of the DSU.
The representatives of Australia, Korea and the United States hereby notify the Dispute
Settlement Body (DSB) that, foll owing discussions held under Article 21.3(b) of the Understanding
on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), they have agreed on a
reasonable period of time for Korea's implementation of the DSB recommendations and rulings
adopted on 10 January 2001 in the dispute "" (WT/DS161 and WT/DS169). The reasonable period shall expire on
10 September 2001. A memorandum describing the terms of the agreement reached is attached.
(s) Philip Sparkes (s) Eui-Yong Chung
Chargé d'affaires, a.i. Ambassador
Deputy Permanent Representative to the WTO Permanent Representative to the WTO
For the Government of Australia For the Government of the Republic of Korea
(s) David P. Shark
Chargé d'affaires, a.i.
Deputy Permanent Representative to the WTO
For the Government of the United States

(WT/DS161 and WT/DS169)
Agreement Pursuant to Article 21.3(b) of the DSU
The representatives of Australia, Korea and the United States hereby agree, pursuant to
Article 21.3(b) of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes
(DSU), that the reasonable period of time for Korea to implement the recommendations and rulings of
the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) adopted on 10 January 2001 in the dispute "" (WT/DS161 and WT/DS169) shall be 8 months
and shall expire on 10 September 2001.
In addition, Korea agrees to consult on request with Australia and the United States during the
reasonable period of time with respect to Korea's implementation. Furthermore, in advance of taking
any actions intended to comply with the recomme ndations and rulings of the DSB in this dispute,
Korea shall provide Australia and the United States with information regarding those proposed actions
as well as an opportunity to comment on the proposed actions prior to their taking effect.
This agreement is without prejudice to the parties' rights and obligations under the Marrakesh
Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization.
Geneva, April 19, 2001
For Australia For the Republic of Korea For the United States
(s) Philip Sparkes (s) Eui-Yong Chung (s) David P. Shark
Chargé d'affaires, a.i. Ambassador Chargé d'affaires, a.i.
Deputy Permanent Permanent Representative Deputy Permanent
 Representative to the WTO to the WTO Representative to the WTO
KOREA – MEASURES AFFECTING IMPORTS OF FRESH, CHILLED AND FROZEN BEEF
Document: Appellate Body Report and Panel Report Action by the Dispute Settlement Body
Date: 22 January 2001
Document codes: WT/DS161/11; WT/DS169/11; WT/DS161/AB/R; WT/DS169/AB/R; WT/DS169/R
Complainant: Australia
Respondent: South Korea
Third parties: Canada, New Zealand, U.S.
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. II, III, X, XI, XVII  GATT 1994Art. 3, 4, 6, 7  AgricultureArt. 1, 3  Import Licensing

KOREA – MEASURES AFFECTING IMPORTS OF FRESH,
CHILLED AND FROZEN BEEF
Appellate Body Report and Panel Report
Action by the Dispute Settlement Body
At its meeting on 10 January 2001, the Dispute Settlement Body adopted the Appellate Body
report on ""
(, ), and the panel report (W T/DS161/R, ), as
modified by the Appellate Body report. The panel report should be read in conjunction with the
Appellate Body report.
CORÉE – MESURES AFFECTANT LES IMPORTATIONS DE VIANDE
DE BŒUF FRAÎCHE, RÉFRIGÉRÉE ET CONGELÉE
Rapport de l'Organe d'appel et rapport du Groupe spécial
À sa réunion du 10 janvier 2001, l'Organe de règlement des différends a adopté le rapport de
l'Organe d'appel intitulé "Corée – Mesures affectant les importations de viande de bœuf fraîche,
réfrigérée et congelée" (, WT/D S169/AB/R) et le rapport du Groupe spécial
spécial est à rapprocher de celui de l'Organe d'appel.
CARNE VACUNA FRESCA, REFRIGERADA Y CONGELADA
Actuación del Órgano de Solución de Diferencias
UNITED STATES – ANTI-DUMPING ACT OF 1916
Document: Request to Join Consultations Communication from the European Communities
Date: 22 February 1999
Document codes: WT/DS162/2
Complainant: Japan
Respondent: U.S.
Third parties: EU, India
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. III:4, VI, XI  GATT 1994Art. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 11, 18.1, 18.4  Anti-dumpingArt. XVI:4  Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization

UNITED STATES – ANTI-DUMPING ACT OF 1916
Request to Join Consultations
Communication from the European Communities
The following communication, dated 17 February 1999, from the Permanent Delegation of
the European Commission to the Permanent Mission of the United States and to the Chairman of the
Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated in accordance with Article 4.11 of the DSU.
I refer to the request by the Government of Japan, dated 10 February 1999, to hold
consultations with the Government of the United States pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on
Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), Article XXII:1 of the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994) and Article 17.2 of the Agreement on
Implementation of Article VI of GATT 1994 (Anti-Dumping Agreement) regarding the United States
Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 (15 USC 72).
As you know, the European Communities are also concerned about the consistency of the
1916 Act with a number of provisions of GATT 1994 and the Anti-Dumping Agreement, and have a
substantial trading interest in the object of the present consultations.
Therefore, on behalf of the European Communities, I request the United States of America to
accept the European Communities joining the consultations between Japan and the United States of
America concerning the 1916 Anti-Dumping Act, in accordance with Article 4.11 of the DSU.
The European Communities look forward to receiving your reply to this request.
UNITED STATES – ANTI-DUMPING ACT OF 1916
Document: Request for the Establishment of a Panel by Japan Corrigendum In the third paragraph of the communication, the first part of the sentence should read: Therefore, the Government of Japan hereby requests that a panel be established with the standard terms of reference provided for in Article 7.1 of the DSU at the next meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), pursuant to Article XXIII of GATT 1994, Articles 4 and 6 of the DSU and Article 17 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement regarding the United States Anti-Dumping Act of 1916, and that the Panel consider and find that the United States Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 is neither consistent with nor justified by the following relevant provisions:
Date: 10 February 2000
Document codes: WT/DS162/3/Corr.1
Complainant: Japan
Respondent: U.S.
Third parties: EU, India
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. III:4, VI, XI  GATT 1994Art. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 11, 18.1, 18.4  Anti-dumpingArt. XVI:4  Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization

UNITED STATES – ANTI-DUMPING ACT OF 1916
Request for the Establishment of a Panel by Japan
Corrigendum
In the third paragraph of the communication, the first part of the sentence should read:
Therefore, the Government of Japan hereby requests that a panel be established with the
standard terms of reference provided for in Article 7.1 of the DSU at the next meeting of the Dispute
Settlement Body (DSB), pursuant to Article XXIII of GATT 1994, Articles 4 and 6 of the DSU and
Article 17 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement regarding the United States Anti-Dumping Act of 1916,
and that the Panel consider and find that the United States Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 is neither
consistent with nor justified by the following relevant provisions:
UNITED STATES – ANTI-DUMPING ACT OF 1916
Document: Constitution of the Panel Established at the Request of Japan Note by the Secretariat
Date: 20 August 1999
Document codes: WT/DS162/4; WT/DS162/3; WT/DS162/3
Complainant: Japan
Respondent: U.S.
Third parties: EU, India
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. III:4, VI, XI  GATT 1994Art. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 11, 18.1, 18.4  Anti-dumpingArt. XVI:4  Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization

UNITED STATES – ANTI-DUMPING ACT OF 1916
Constitution of the Panel Established at the Request of Japan
Note by the Secretariat
1. At its meeting on 26 July 1999 the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) established a panel
pursuant to a request by Japan (), in accordance with Article 6 of the Dispute Settlement
Understanding (DSU) (WT/DSB/M65).
2. In accordance with Article 7.1 of the DSU, the terms of reference of the Panel are the
following:
"To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited
by Japan in document , the matter referred to the DSB by Japan in that
document and to make such findings as will assist the DSB in making the
recommendations or in giving the rulings provided for in those agreements."
3. On 11 August 1999, the Panel was constituted as follows:
Chairman: Mr. Johann Human
Members: Mr. Dimitrij Gr čar
Mr. Eugeniusz Piontek
4. The European Communities and India have reserved their rights as third parties to the dispute.
UNITED STATES – ANTI-DUMPING ACT OF 1916
Document: Communication from the Chairman of the Panel
Date: 7 February 2000
Document codes: WT/DS162/5
Complainant: Japan
Respondent: U.S.
Third parties: EU, India
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. III:4, VI, XI  GATT 1994Art. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 11, 18.1, 18.4  Anti-dumpingArt. XVI:4  Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization

UNITED STATES – ANTI-DUMPING ACT OF 1916
Communication from the Chairman of the Panel
The following communication, dated 2 February 2000 and addressed to the Dispute
Settlement Body, is circulated in accordance with Article 12.9 of the DSU.
Article 12.8 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of
Disputes (DSU) provides that the period in which a panel shall conduct its examination, from the date
that the composition and terms of reference of the panel have been agreed upon until the date the final
report is issued to the parties to the dispute, shall, as a general rule, not exceed six months.
Article 12.9 of the DSU provides that when a panel considers that it cannot issue its report
within six months, it shall inform the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) in writing of the reasons for the
delay together with an estimate of the period within which it will issue its report.
The Panel on "" (WT/DS162) was established by
the DSB on 26 July 1999 and parties agreed to its composition and terms of reference on
11 August 1999. Due to administrative constraints, the Panel will not able to issue its report within
six months.
The Panel expects to issue its final report to the parties in early April 2000.
UNITED STATES - ANTI-DUMPING ACT OF 1916
Document: Note by the Secretariat
Date: 6 July 2000
Document codes: WT/DS162/7
Complainant: Japan
Respondent: U.S.
Third parties: EU, India
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. III:4, VI, XI  GATT 1994Art. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 11, 18.1, 18.4  Anti-dumpingArt. XVI:4  Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization

UNITED STATES - ANTI-DUMPING ACT OF 1916
Note by the Secretariat
The following communication, dated 3 July 2000, was sent by the Chairman of the Panel to
the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body:
"On 29 May 2000, the United States appealed the reports of the panels in United States - Anti-
Dumping Act of 1916 (WT/DS136 - complaint by the European Communities and WT/DS/162 -
complaint by Japan). The report in WT/DS162 as circulated to Members on 29 May 2000 does not
include sections III and IV.
It is the understanding of the Panel that the parties agreed to the circulation of a report in that
form so as to allow the Appellate Body to hear co ncurrently the appeals filed by the United States in
the two cases. Due to a lack of translation capacity in the WTO Secretariat, such a concurrent appeal
would not have been possible if the parties had not agreed to this arrangement.
It is the Panel's understanding that sections III and IV of its report in WT/DS162 will be
circulated to Members in August 2000.
I would be grateful if, for the sake of transparency, this letter could be circulated to
Members."
UNITED STATES – ANTI-DUMPING ACT OF 1916
Document: Communication from Mexico
Date: 26 July 2000
Document codes: WT/DS162/8; WT/DS162/7
Complainant: Japan
Respondent: U.S.
Third parties: EU, India
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. III:4, VI, XI  GATT 1994Art. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 11, 18.1, 18.4  Anti-dumpingArt. XVI:4  Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization

UNITED STATES – ANTI-DUMPING ACT OF 1916
Communication from Mexico
The following communication, dated 24 July 2000, from the Permanent Mission of Mexico to
the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated at the request of Mexico.
The purpose of this communication is to express the deep concern of the Government of
Mexico with regard to the handling of the Panel Report in "" (complaint by Japan) as explained in th e communication of the Chairman of the Panel

For the reasons set out below, Mexico considers that omitting the descriptive sections of the
Panel report and circulating only part of the report is contrary to the Dispute Settlement
Understanding:
(a) Article 15.2 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding clearly establishes that reports
include both descriptive sections and also findings and conclusions, and not only the
latter. This idea is again set out in Appendix III of the Understanding.
(b) Article 17 of the Understanding makes it clear that appellate proceedings concern "a
panel report". In this particular case, only the findings and conclusions section of the
Panel report was appealed. This will in turn affect the rights of third parties in the
event of an appeal.
(c) Various provisions of the DSU will be seriously affected if reports are allowed to be
divided up and circulated in parts, particularly Articles 15.1, 15.2, 17.4 and 17.6.
(d) Separating out the descriptive sections of a panel report is contrary to GATT practice
as well as the practice followed in the WTO itself, thus infringing Article XVI:1 of
the WTO Agreement.
The above-mentioned provisions are substantive ones and cannot be modified by Members
that are parties to a specific procedure nor by panels.
Furthermore, the publication of the findings and conclusions section of the report before the
final report was ready is contrary to the "Procedures for the circulation and derestriction of
documents", under which panel reports remain restricted until they have been circulated to Members.
In this case, since the final report of the Panel has not yet been issued, there is no reason to publish
only the findings and conclusions section.
UNITED STATES – ANTI-DUMPING ACT OF 1916
Document: Recourse by Japan to Article 22.6 of the DSU Constitution of the Arbitrator Note by the Secretariat
Date: 19 February 2002
Document codes: WT/DS162/20; WT/DS162/18
Complainant: Japan
Respondent: U.S.
Third parties: EU, India
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. III:4, VI, XI  GATT 1994Art. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 11, 18.1, 18.4  Anti-dumpingArt. XVI:4  Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization

UNITED STATES – ANTI-DUMPING ACT OF 1916
Recourse by Japan to Article 22.6 of the DSU
Constitution of the Arbitrator
Note by the Secretariat
1. At its meeting on 18 January 2002, the Dispute Se ttlement Body (DSB) agreed that the matter
raised by Japan in document shall be referred to arbitration in accordance with
Article 22.6 of the DSU.
2. Article 22.6 of the DSU provides as follows:
"When the situation described in paragraph 2 occurs, the DSB, upon request, shall
grant authorization to suspend concessions or other obligations within 30 days of the
expiry of the reasonable period of time unless the DSB decides by consensus to reject
the request. However, if the Member concerned objects to the level of suspension
proposed, or claims that the principles and procedures set forth in paragraph 3 have
not been followed where a complaining party has requested authorization to suspend
concessions or other obligations pursuant to paragraph 3(b) or (c), the matter shall be
referred to arbitration. Such arbitration shall be carried out by the original panel, if
members are available, or by an arbitrator
15 appointed by the Director-General and
shall be completed within 60 days after the date of expiry of the reasonable period of
time. Concessions or other obligations shall not be suspended during the course of
the arbitration."
(original footnote) 15 The expression "arbitrator" shall be interpreted as referring either to an
individual or a group.
3. The following individuals will serve as arbitrators: 1
Chairman: Mr. Dimitrij Gr čar
Members: Mr. Brendan McGivern
Mr. Eugeniusz Piontek
Mr. McGivern and it was agreed that Mr. Grčar should act as Chairman.
UNITED STATES – ANTI-DUMPING ACT OF 1916
Document: Recourse by the United States to Article 22.6 of the DSU Communication from the Arbitrator
Date: 4 March 2002
Document codes: WT/DS162/21
Complainant: Japan
Respondent: U.S.
Third parties: EU, India
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. III:4, VI, XI  GATT 1994Art. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 11, 18.1, 18.4  Anti-dumpingArt. XVI:4  Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization

UNITED STATES – ANTI-DUMPING ACT OF 1916
Recourse by the United States to Article 22.6 of the DSU
Communication from the Arbitrator
The following communication, dated 27 February 2002, has been received from the
Permanent Mission of Japan and the Permanent Mission of the United States and addressed to
Mr. Dimitrij Grčar, Chairman of the arbitrators.
"Japan and the United States of America (US) wish to thank you and the other
arbitrators for accepting to serve as the Arbitrator in the above-captioned proceeding.
Japan and the US would like to inform you that a proposal to repeal the 1916 Act and
to terminate cases pending under the Act is currently being examined by the
US Congress. In the light of this circumstance, Japan and the US respectfully request
the Arbitrator to suspend the arbitration proceeding. The US and Japan agree that the
arbitration proceeding may be reactivated at the request of either party after
30 June 2002 if no substantial progress has been made in resolving this dispute by
that date."
In accordance with the joint request by the parties, the Arbitrator has suspended the
arbitration proceeding. The Arbitrator has taken note of the parties' agreement that the arbitration
proceeding may be reactivated at the request of either party after 30 June 2002 if no substantial
progress has been made in resolving the dispute by that date.
UNITED STATES – ANTI-DUMPING ACT OF 1916
Document: Request for Consultations by Japan
Date: 16 February 1999
Document codes: WT/DS162/1; G/L/293; G/ADP/D16/1
Complainant: Japan
Respondent: U.S.
Third parties: EU, India
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. III:4, VI, XI  GATT 1994Art. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 11, 18.1, 18.4  Anti-dumpingArt. XVI:4  Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization

UNITED STATES – ANTI-DUMPING ACT OF 1916

Request for Consultations by Japan

 The following communication, dated 10 February 1999, from the Permanent Mission of Japan
to the Permanent Mission of the United States and the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is
circulated in accordance with Article 4.4 of the DSU.

 Upon instructions from my authorities, I hereby wish to convey the request of the
Government of Japan for consultations with the Government of the United States of America pursuant
to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Pr ocedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes
(DSU), Article XXII:1 of the General Agre ement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994) and
Article 17.2 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade 1994 (Anti-Dumping Agreement) regard ing the United States Anti-Dumping Act of 1916,
15 U.S.C.72 (1994) (originally enacted as part of the Act of September 8, 1916, Pub. L. No. 64-271,
39 Stat. 756) (US 1916 Act).

 The US 1916 Act stipulates to the effect that the importation or sales of imported goods
within the US market in certain circumstances sha ll be unlawful, constituting a criminal offence, as
well as being subject to a civil lawsuit. Judici al decisions under the US 1916 Act are made without
the procedural safeguards provided for in the Anti- Dumping Agreement. It should be noted that a
court action was brought and is pr esently underway under the US 19 16 Act against the affiliates of
Japanese companies.

 The Government of Japan is concerned about the consistency of the US 1916 Act with the
WTO Agreement, including Articles III, VI and XI of the GATT 1994 and the Anti-Dumping
Agreement.

 The Government of Japan reserves the right to raise additional claims on legal issues and any
other matters regarding the US 1916 Act during the course of the consultations.

 We look forward to receiving your reply to this request for consultations and to fixing a
mutually acceptable date for the consultations.
UNITED STATES – ANTI-DUMPING ACT OF 1916
Document: Recourse by the United States to Article 22.6 of the DSU Corrigendum In the sub-title, change "Japan" to read "the United States".  In the first paragraph, second line, change "Japan" to read "the United States" and change the reference to document "WT/DS162/18" to read "WT/DS162/19". ÉTATS-UNIS – LOI ANTIDUMPING DE 1916 Recours des États-Unis à l'article 22:6 du Mémorandum d'accord sur le règlement des différends Corrigendum Dans le sous-titre, remplacer "du Japon" par "des États-Unis".  Au premier paragraphe, deuxième ligne, remplacer "le Japon" par "les États-Unis" et la référence au document "WT/DS162/18" par "WT/DS162/19". ESTADOS UNIDOS - LEY ANTIDUMPING DE 1916 Recurso de los Estados Unidos al párrafo 6 del artículo 22 del ESD Corrigendum
Date: 28 February 2002
Document codes: WT/DS162/20/Corr.1; WT/DS162/18; WT/DS162/19; WT/DS162/18
Complainant: Japan
Respondent: U.S.
Third parties: EU, India
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. III:4, VI, XI  GATT 1994Art. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 11, 18.1, 18.4  Anti-dumpingArt. XVI:4  Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization

UNITED STATES – ANTI-DUMPING ACT OF 1916
Recourse by the United States to Article 22.6 of the DSU
Corrigendum
In the sub-title, change "Japan" to read "the United States". In the first paragraph, second
line, change "Japan" to read "the United States" and change the reference to document
"" to read "".
ÉTATS-UNIS – LOI ANTIDUMPING DE 1916
Corrigendum
"" par "".
ESTADOS UNIDOS - LEY ANTIDUMPING DE 1916
Corrigendum
por "".
UNITED STATES – ANTI-DUMPING ACT OF 1916
Document: Request by the United States for Arbitration under Article 22.6 of the DSU
Date: 18 January 2002
Document codes: WT/DS162/19; WT/DS162/18.
Complainant: Japan
Respondent: U.S.
Third parties: EU, India
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. III:4, VI, XI  GATT 1994Art. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 11, 18.1, 18.4  Anti-dumpingArt. XVI:4  Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization

UNITED STATES – ANTI-DUMPING ACT OF 1916
Request by the United States for Arbitration under Article 22.6 of the DSU
The following communication, dated 17 January 2002, from the Permanent Mission of the
United States to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 22.6
of the DSU.
Regarding the dispute "" (WT/DS162), my
authorities have instructed me to inform you th at, pursuant to Article 22.6 of the Understanding on
Rules and Procedures Governing Disputes (DSU), the United States objects to the level of suspension
of obligations proposed by Japan in document The United States also claims that the
principles and procedures of Article 22.3 have not been followed.
Accordingly, as required by Article 22.6 of the DSU, "the matter shall be referred to
arbitration".
KOREA – MEASURES AFFECTING GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT
Document: Request to Join Consultations Communication from the European Communities
Date: 8 March 1999
Document codes: WT/DS163/2
Complainant: U.S.
Respondent: South Korea
Third parties: EU, Japan
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Annex I, Art. III, VIII, XI, XVI, XX, XXII:2  Government Procurement (GPA)

KOREA – MEASURES AFFECTING GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT
Request to Join Consultations
Communication from the European Communities
The following communication, dated 3 March 1999, from the Permanent Delegation of the
European Commission to the Permanent Mission of Korea and to the Chairman of the Dispute
Settlement Body, is circulated in accordance with Article 4.11 of the DSU.
Pursuant to Article XXII of the Government Procurement Agreement (GPA) and
paragraph 11 of Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of
Disputes, the European Communities request the Gove rnment of Korea, in light of the substantial
trade interest of the EC, to be joined in the consultations requested by the United States in a
communication circulated to the WTO Memb ers on 22 February 1999 (, GPA/D4/1)
entitled "".
The European Communities have a substantial trade interest in the procurement practices that
are the subject of the US request as EC construction firms are second only to the USA in the
construction of airfields around the world.
KOREA – MEASURES AFFECTING GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT
Document: Request to Join Consultations Communication from Japan
Date: 9 March 1999
Document codes: WT/DS163/3
Complainant: U.S.
Respondent: South Korea
Third parties: EU, Japan
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Annex I, Art. III, VIII, XI, XVI, XX, XXII:2  Government Procurement (GPA)

KOREA – MEASURES AFFECTING GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT
Request to Join Consultations
Communication from Japan
The following communication, dated 4 March 1999, from the Permanent Mission of Japan to
the Permanent Mission of Korea and to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated in
accordance with Article 4.11 of the DSU.
Pursuant to paragraph 11 of Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures
Governing the Settlement of Disputes, the Government of Japan hereby notifies the Government of
the Republic of Korea that, in light of the substantial trade interest of Japan, it desires to be joined in
the consultations requested by the United States in a communication circulated to WTO Members on
22 February 1999 (, GPA/D4/1) entitl ed "".
KOREA – MEASURES AFFECTING GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT
Document: Constitution of the Panel Established at the Request of the United States Communication from the DSB Chairman
Date: 3 September 1999
Document codes: WT/DS163/5; WT/DS163/4; WT/DS163/4
Complainant: U.S.
Respondent: South Korea
Third parties: EU, Japan
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Annex I, Art. III, VIII, XI, XVI, XX, XXII:2  Government Procurement (GPA)

KOREA – MEASURES AFFECTING GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT
Constitution of the Panel Established at the Request of the United States
Communication from the DSB Chairman
1. At its meeting on 16 June 1999, the DSB established a panel pursuant to the request of the
United States (), in accordance with Article 6 of the DSU (WT/DSB/M/64).
2. At that meeting, the DSB agreed that the Panel should have standard terms of reference
pursuant to Article XXII:4 of the Agreement on Government Procurement. The terms of reference of
the Panel are therefore the following:
"To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the Agreement on Government
Procurement, the matter referred to the DSB by the United States in document
 and to make such findings as will assist the DSB in making the
recommendations or in giving the rulings provided for in that Agreement."
3. On 30 August 1999, the Panel was constituted with the following composition:
Chairman: Mr. Michael Cartland
Members: Mrs. Marie-Gabrielle Ineichen-Fleisch
Mr. Peter-Armin Trepte
4. The European Community and Japan have reserved their rights as third parties to participate
in the panel proceedings in relation to the complaint raised by the United States.
KOREA – MEASURES AFFECTING GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT
Document: Communication from the Chairman of the Panel
Date: 31 January 2000
Document codes: WT/DS163/6
Complainant: U.S.
Respondent: South Korea
Third parties: EU, Japan
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Annex I, Art. III, VIII, XI, XVI, XX, XXII:2  Government Procurement (GPA)

KOREA – MEASURES AFFECTING GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT
Communication from the Chairman of the Panel
The following communication, dated 25 January 2000, addressed to the Dispute Settlement
Body, is circulated in accordance with Article 12.9 of the DSU.
Article XXII:6 of the Agreement on Government Procurement stipulates that, notwithstanding
the provisions of paragraphs 8 and 9 of Article 12 of the DSU, the Panel shall attempt to provide its
final report to the parties to the dispute not later than four months, and in case of delay not later than
seven months, after the date on which the composition and terms of reference of the Panel are agreed.
The DSB established the Panel on and
determined its terms of reference on 16 June 1999. The Panel was composed on 30 August 1999.
I wish to inform you that, in spite of the effort made to accelerate the proceedings to the greatest
extent possible, the Panel has not been able to comp lete its work within the four months provided for
in the Agreement. The complex nature of the matters as well as certain logistical and scheduling
difficulties are responsible for the delay.
The Panel intends to circulate its final report by the end of April 2000.
KOREA - MEASURES AFFECTING GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT
Document: Panel Report Action by the Dispute Settlement Body
Date: 6 November 2000
Document codes: WT/DS163/7; WT/DS163/R
Complainant: U.S.
Respondent: South Korea
Third parties: EU, Japan
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Annex I, Art. III, VIII, XI, XVI, XX, XXII:2  Government Procurement (GPA)

KOREA - MEASURES AFFECTING GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT
Panel Report
Action by the Dispute Settlement Body
At its meeting on 19 June 2000, and in conformity with Article 2.1 of the DSU, the Dispute
Settlement Body adopted the Panel report on ""

CORÉE - MESURES AFFECTANT LES MARCHÉS PUBLICS
Rapport du Groupe spécial
intitulé "Corée - Mesures affectant les marchés publics" ().
Informe del Grupo Especial
Actuación del Órgano de Solución de Diferencias
ESD, el Órgano de Solución de Diferencias adoptó el informe titulado "Corea - Medidas que afectan a
la contratación pública" ().
ARGENTINA – MEASURES AFFECTING IMPORTS OF FOOTWEAR
Document: Request for Consultations by the United States
Date: 4 March 1999
Document codes: WT/DS164/1; G/SG/D6/1; G/L/294
Complainant: U.S.
Respondent: Argentina
Third parties: Indonesia
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. 7.4, 12  Safeguards

ARGENTINA – MEASURES AFFECTING IMPORTS OF FOOTWEAR
Request for Consultations by the United States
The following communication, dated 1 March 1999, from the Permanent Mission of the
United States to the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Argentina and to the Chairman of the
Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated in accordance with Article 4.4. the DSU.
My authorities have instructed me to request consultations with the Government of Argentina,
pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of
Disputes and Article 14 of the Agreement on Safeguards (to the extent it incorporates by reference
Article XXII of the GATT 1994), regarding certain measures implemented by Argentina affecting
imports of footwear.
Specifically, in November 1998 Argentina adopted Resolution 1506 modifying
Resolution 987 of 10 September 1997, which had established safeguard duties on imports of footwear
from non-MERCOSUR countries. Resolution 1506 im poses a tariff-rate quota (TRQ) on such
footwear imports in addition to the safeguard duties previously imposed. Moreover, Resolution 1506
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.
Based upon information received to date, the United States considers that Resolution 1506
may be inconsistent with the obligations of Argentina under the Agreement on Safeguards, in
particular: (1) Article 5.1, which requires that a measure be applied only to the extent necessary to
prevent or remedy serious injury and to facilitate adjustment; (2) Article 7.4, which mandates that
safeguard measures over one year in duration be progressively liberalized at regular intervals; and (3)
Article 12, which directs Members to notify the Committee on Safeguards of all safeguard actions and
to provide adequate opportunity for prior consultations with Members having substantial export
interest in the product concerned.
We look forward to receiving your reply to this request and to fixing a mutually acceptable
date for consultations.
ARGENTINA – MEASURES AFFECTING IMPORTS OF FOOTWEAR
Document: Request to Join Consultations Communication from the European Communities
Date: 17 March 1999
Document codes: WT/DS164/2
Complainant: U.S.
Respondent: Argentina
Third parties: Indonesia
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. 7.4, 12  Safeguards

ARGENTINA – MEASURES AFFECTING IMPORTS OF FOOTWEAR
Request to Join Consultations
Communication from the European Communities
The following communication, dated 12 March 1999, from the Permanent Delegation of the
European Commission to the Chairman of the Disput e Settlement Body, is circulated in accordance
with Article 4.11 of the DSU.
Pursuant to paragraph 11 of Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures
Governing the Settlement of Disputes, Article 14 of the Agreement on Safeguards and Article XXII of
the GATT 1994, the European Communities hereby wish to inform Argentina of its substantial trade
interest and request to be joined in the consultations initiated by the United States in a communication
circulated to the WTO Members on 4 March 1 999 (, , ) entitled
"".
The European Communities have a substantial interest in the measure subject to the US
request given that EC exports of footwear produc ts covered by Resolution 1506 exceeded € 2 m for
the year 1997.