dean22029/WTO_Docs huggingface dataset:
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES - ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON MALLEABLE CAST IRON TUBE OR PIPE FITTINGS FROM BRAZIL
Document: Communication from the Chairman of the Panel
Date: 6 May 2002
Document codes: WT/DS219/6
Complainant: Brazil
Respondent: EU
Third parties: Chile, Japan, Mexico, U.S.
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 15  Anti-dumpingArt. I, VI  GATT 1994

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES - ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON MALLEABLE
CAST IRON TUBE OR PIPE FITTINGS FROM BRAZIL
Communication from the Chairman of the Panel
The following communication, dated 3 May 2002, addressed to the Dispute Settlement Body,
is circulated pursuant to Article 12.9 of the 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 (WT/DS219) was established by the DSB on 24 July 2001 and composed on
5 September 2001. The Panel agreed to the joint requests from both parties to suspended its work as
of 15 January 2002 1. The Panel has resumed its work on 22 April 2002 in accordance with Brazil's
request.
It will not be possible for the Panel to complete its work in six months in light of, inter alia,
scheduling conflicts.
The Panel expects to complete its work in December 2002, depending on translation.
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON MALLEABLE CAST IRON TUBE OR PIPE FITTINGS FROM BRAZIL
Document: Communication from the Appellate Body
Date: 24 June 2003
Document codes: WT/DS219/8
Complainant: Brazil
Respondent: EU
Third parties: Chile, Japan, Mexico, U.S.
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 15  Anti-dumpingArt. I, VI  GATT 1994

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON MALLEABLE
CAST IRON TUBE OR PIPE FITTINGS FROM BRAZIL
Communication from the Appellate Body
The following communication, dated 19 June 2003, from Mr. James Bacchus, 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 (the "DSB") of its decision to appeal. Article 17.5 states, furthermore, that when the
Appellate Body considers that it cannot provide it s 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.
Brazil notified the DSB on 23 April 2003 of its decision to appeal certain issues of law
covered in the Panel Report and legal interpretations developed by the Panel in this case, with the
result that the 60-day period expires on Monday, 23 June 2003. Due to the time required for
completion and translation of the Report, the Appellate Body will not be able to circulate its Report
by Monday, 23 June 2003. We estimate that the Appellate Body Report in this appeal will be
circulated to WTO Members no later than Tuesday, 22 July 2003.
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON MALLEABLE CAST IRON TUBE OR PIPE FITTINGS FROM BRAZIL
Document: Communication from the Appellate Body
Date: 24 July 2003
Document codes: WT/DS219/9; WT/DS219/AB/R.
Complainant: Brazil
Respondent: EU
Third parties: Chile, Japan, Mexico, U.S.
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 15  Anti-dumpingArt. I, VI  GATT 1994

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON MALLEABLE
CAST IRON TUBE OR PIPE FITTINGS FROM BRAZIL
Communication from the Appellate Body
The following communication, dated 22 July 2003, from Mr. James Bacchus, 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 provide to you the Report of the Appellate Body in ,
 It will be circulated to Members of the later today, in
accordance with paragraph 5 of Article 17 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing
the Settlement of Disputes . It is a confidential document until its circulation. The three Members of
the Appellate Body who served on this appeal were: Mr. Ganesan, as Presiding Member;
Mr. Luiz Olavo Baptista and Mr. Giorgio Sacerdoti, as Members.
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON MALLEABLE CAST IRON TUBE OR PIPE FITTINGS FROM BRAZIL
Document: Communication from the European Communities
Date: 17 September 2003
Document codes: WT/DS219/11
Complainant: Brazil
Respondent: EU
Third parties: Chile, Japan, Mexico, U.S.
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 15  Anti-dumpingArt. I, VI  GATT 1994

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON
MALLEABLE CAST IRON TUBE OR PIPE FITTINGS FROM BRAZIL
Communication from the European Communities
The following communication, dated 15 September 2003, from the Permanent Delegation of
the European Commission to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated at the
request of that delegation.
The European Communities submit this communicati on in the light of the obligations set out
in Article 21.3 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes.
On 18 August 2003, the Dispute Settlement B ody (DSB) adopted its recommendations and
rulings in ( and ). At that meeting, the European
Communities indicated that in due course it would inform the DSB on the steps it intends to take to
implement the DSB recommendations of concern to it.
The EC wishes to confirm its intention to im plement the recommendations and rulings of the
DSB in this case in a manner consistent with its WTO obligations and it has begun already to evaluate
options for doing so.
Due to the relative complexity of the issues involved and the need for re-determinations, the
European Communities will need a reasonable period of time in which to do so. The EC stands ready
and willing to discuss on an appropriate reasonable period of time for implementation with Brazil, in
accordance with Article 21.3(b) of the DSU.
The EC has, in the light of the preparation and holding of the 5
th Ministerial Conference in
Cancun, refrained from requesting to hold a special meeting of the DSB in order to make this
communication orally, but intends to repeat the co ntent of the attached communication at the next
ordinary meeting of the DSB scheduled for 2 October 2003. Brazil has agreed to this course of
action.
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON MALLEABLE CAST IRON TUBE OR PIPE FITTINGS FROM BRAZIL
Document: Agreement under Article 21.3(b) of the DSU
Date: 3 October 2003
Document codes: WT/DS219/12
Complainant: Brazil
Respondent: EU
Third parties: Chile, Japan, Mexico, U.S.
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 15  Anti-dumpingArt. I, VI  GATT 1994

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON
MALLEABLE CAST IRON TUBE OR PIPE FITTINGS FROM BRAZIL
Agreement under Article 21.3(b) of the DSU
The following communication, dated 1 October 2003, from the Permanent Delegation of the
European Commission and the Permanent Mission of Brazil to the Chairman of the Dispute
Settlement Body, is circulated in accordance with Article 21.3(b) of the DSU.
Pursuant to Article 21.3(b) of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the
Settlement of Disputes the European Communities and Brazil would like to inform the Dispute
Settlement Body (DSB) that they have agreed that the reasonable period of time for the European
Communities to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in the dispute EC –
Anti-Dumping Duties on Malleable Cast Iron Tube or Pipe Fittings from Brazil (DS219), adopted on
18 August 2003 will be 7 months and thus expiring on 19 March 2004.
For the European Communities For Brazil
(signed) (signed)
Carlo Trojan Luiz Felipe de Seixas Corrêa
Ambassador Ambassador
Permanent Representative to the WTO Permanent Representative to the WTO
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON MALLEABLE CAST IRON TUBE OR PIPE FITTINGS FROM BRAZIL
Document: Appellate Body Report and Panel Report Action by the Dispute Settlement Body
Date: 27 August 2003
Document codes: WT/DS219/10; WT/DS219/AB/R; WT/DS219/R
Complainant: Brazil
Respondent: EU
Third parties: Chile, Japan, Mexico, U.S.
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 15  Anti-dumpingArt. I, VI  GATT 1994

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON
MALLEABLE CAST IRON TUBE OR PIPE FITTINGS FROM BRAZIL
Appellate Body Report and Panel Report
Action by the Dispute Settlement Body
At its meeting on 18 August 2003, the Dispute Settlement Body adopted the Appellate Body
report on European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duti es on Malleable Cast Iron Tube or Pipe
Fittings from Brazil () and the Panel report (), as modified by the
Appellate Body report. The Panel report should be read in conjunction with the Appellate Body
report.

ACCESSOIRES DE TUYAUTERIE EN FONTE MALLÉABLE
EN PROVENANCE DU BRÉSIL
Rapport de l'Organe d'appel et rapport du Groupe spécial
À sa réunion du 18 août 2003, l'Organe de règlement des différends a adopté le rapport de
l'Organe d'appel intitulé Communautés européennes – Droits antidumping sur les accessoires de
rapprocher de celui de l'Organe d'appel.
LOS ACCESORIOS DE TUBERÍA DE FUNDICIÓN MALEABLE
PROCEDENTES DEL BRASIL
Actuación del Órgano de Solución de Diferencias
En su reunión de 18 de agosto de 2003, el Órgano de Solución de Diferencias adoptó el
accesorios de tubería de fundición maleable procedentes del Brasil (R), y el informe
UNITED STATES – SECTION 129(C)(1) OF THE URUGUAY ROUND AGREEMENTS ACT
Document: Request to Join Consultations Communication from India
Date: 2 February 2001
Document codes: WT/DS221/2
Complainant: Canada
Respondent: U.S.
Third parties: Chile, EU, India, Japan
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. 3.2, 3.7  Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU)Art. VI:2  GATT 1994Art. 10, 19.4, 21.1  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)Art. 1, 9.3, 11.1, 18.1  Anti-dumpingArt. XVI:4  Agreement Establishing the World Trade OrganizationArt. 19.1  Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU)Art. 32.1  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)Art. 21.1, 21.3  Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU)Art. VI:3, VI:6  GATT 1994Art. 32.5  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)Art. 18.4  Anti-dumping

UNITED STATES – SECTION 129(C)(1) OF THE
URUGUAY ROUND AGREEMENTS ACT
Request to Join Consultations
Communication from India
The following communication, dated 31 January 2001, from the Permanent Mission of India
to the Permanent Mission of the United States, the Permanent Mission of Canada 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 (DSU), the Government of India hereby notifies its desire to be joined in
consultations requested by the Permanent Mission of Canada to the Permanent Mission of the
United States pursuant to Article 4 of the DSU, Article XXII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade 1994 (GATT 1994), Article 30 of the Agreemen t on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures
(the SCM Agreement) and Article 17 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the AD Agreement) with regard to Section 129(c)(1)
of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (the URAA) and the Statement of Administrative Action
accompanying the URAA (at page 1026). These measures prohibit the US from complying fully with
the DSB rulings in the disputes involving anti-dumping and countervailing measures taken by the US.
The 17 January 2001 communication from the Permanent Mission of Canada to the Permanent
Mission of the United States was circulated to WTO Members on 22 January 2001 (;

India has a substantial trade and systemic interest in these consultations, as its steel and other
products are being subjected to anti-dumping and countervailing measures by the US authorities. We
would be grateful of being informed of the date and venue of the consultations.
UNITED STATES – SECTION 129(C)(1) OF THE URUGUAY ROUND AGREEMENTS ACT
Document: Request to Join Consultations Communication from the European Communities
Date: 9 February 2001
Document codes: WT/DS221/3; WT/DS221/1; G/L/434; G/SCM/D41/1; G/ADP/D33/1
Complainant: Canada
Respondent: U.S.
Third parties: Chile, EU, India, Japan
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. 3.2, 3.7  Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU)Art. VI:2  GATT 1994Art. 10, 19.4, 21.1  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)Art. 1, 9.3, 11.1, 18.1  Anti-dumpingArt. XVI:4  Agreement Establishing the World Trade OrganizationArt. 19.1  Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU)Art. 32.1  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)Art. 21.1, 21.3  Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU)Art. VI:3, VI:6  GATT 1994Art. 32.5  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)Art. 18.4  Anti-dumping

UNITED STATES – SECTION 129(C)(1) OF THE
URUGUAY ROUND AGREEMENTS ACT
Request to Join Consultations
Communication from the European Communities
The following communication, dated 31 January 2001, from the Permanent Delegation of the
European Commission to the Permanent Mission of the United States, the Permanent Mission of
Canada 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 for Consultations by Canada with respect to "United States –
Section 129(c)(1) of the Uruguay Round Agreem ent Act" (, , ,
) circulated on 22 January 2001.
Pursuant to Article 4 of the DSU, Article XXII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade 1994 (GATT 1994), Article 30 of the Agreemen t on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures
and Article 17 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade 1994, the European Communities requested to be joined in the consultations.
The European Communities have a substantial trade interest in several countervailing orders
in the United States at present subject to WTO Dispute Settlement procedures which might be
affected by the application of the US provisions subject to the above-mentioned consultation.
The European Communities look forward to being informed of the date and place of the
consultations.
UNITED STATES – SECTION 129(C)(1) OF THE URUGUAY ROUND AGREEMENTS ACT
Document: Constitution of the Panel Established at the Request of Canada Note by the Secretariat
Date: 31 October 2001
Document codes: WT/DS221/5; WT/DS221/4; WT/DS221/4
Complainant: Canada
Respondent: U.S.
Third parties: Chile, EU, India, Japan
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. 3.2, 3.7  Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU)Art. VI:2  GATT 1994Art. 10, 19.4, 21.1  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)Art. 1, 9.3, 11.1, 18.1  Anti-dumpingArt. XVI:4  Agreement Establishing the World Trade OrganizationArt. 19.1  Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU)Art. 32.1  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)Art. 21.1, 21.3  Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU)Art. VI:3, VI:6  GATT 1994Art. 32.5  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)Art. 18.4  Anti-dumping

UNITED STATES – SECTION 129(C)(1) OF THE
URUGUAY ROUND AGREEMENTS ACT
Constitution of the Panel Established at the Request of Canada
Note by the Secretariat
1. At its meeting on 23 August 2001, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) established a Panel
pursuant to the request of Canada (), in accordance with Article 6 of the Dispute
Settlement Understanding (DSU) (WT/DSB/M/108).
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 Canada in document , the matter referred to the DSB by the Canada
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 30 October 2001, the Panel was constituted as follows:
Chairperson: Mrs. Claudia Orozco Jaramillo
Members: Mr. Simon Farbenbloom
Mr. Edmond McGovern
4. Chile, the European Communities, India and Japan have reserved their third-party rights.
UNITED STATES – SECTION 129(C)(1) OF THE URUGUAY ROUND AGREEMENTS ACT
Document: Communication from the Chair of the Panel
Date: 2 May 2002
Document codes: WT/DS221/6
Complainant: Canada
Respondent: U.S.
Third parties: Chile, EU, India, Japan
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. 3.2, 3.7  Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU)Art. VI:2  GATT 1994Art. 10, 19.4, 21.1  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)Art. 1, 9.3, 11.1, 18.1  Anti-dumpingArt. XVI:4  Agreement Establishing the World Trade OrganizationArt. 19.1  Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU)Art. 32.1  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)Art. 21.1, 21.3  Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU)Art. VI:3, VI:6  GATT 1994Art. 32.5  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)Art. 18.4  Anti-dumping

UNITED STATES – SECTION 129(C)(1) OF THE
URUGUAY ROUND AGREEMENTS ACT
Communication from the Chair of the Panel
The following communication, dated 30 April 2002, addressed to the Chairman of the Dispute
Settlement Body (DSB), is circulated in accord ance with Article 12.9 of the Dispute Settlement
Understanding (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/DS221) was established by the DSB on 23 August 2001 and composed on 30 October 2001.
It will not, however, be possible for the Panel to complete its work in six months due to the
complexity of the matter.
The Panel expects to issue its final report to the parties by the end of June 2002.
UNITED STATES – SECTION 129(C)(1) OF THE URUGUAY ROUND AGREEMENTS ACT
Document: Panel Report Action by the Dispute Settlement Body
Date: 4 September 2002
Document codes: WT/DS221/7; WT/DS221/R; WT/DS221/R
Complainant: Canada
Respondent: U.S.
Third parties: Chile, EU, India, Japan
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. 3.2, 3.7  Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU)Art. VI:2  GATT 1994Art. 10, 19.4, 21.1  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)Art. 1, 9.3, 11.1, 18.1  Anti-dumpingArt. XVI:4  Agreement Establishing the World Trade OrganizationArt. 19.1  Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU)Art. 32.1  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)Art. 21.1, 21.3  Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU)Art. VI:3, VI:6  GATT 1994Art. 32.5  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)Art. 18.4  Anti-dumping

UNITED STATES – SECTION 129(C)(1) OF THE
URUGUAY ROUND AGREEMENTS ACT
Panel Report
Action by the Dispute Settlement Body
At its meeting on 30 August 2002, the Dispute Settlement Body adopted the Panel Report on
"United States – Section 129(c)1 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act" ().
DU CYCLE D'URUGUAY
Rapport du Groupe spécial

Informe del Grupo Especial
Actuación del Órgano de Solución de Diferencias
En su reunión de 30 de agosto de 2002, el Órgano de Solución de Diferencias adoptó el
CANADA – EXPORT CREDITS AND LOAN GUARANTEES FOR REGIONAL AIRCRAFT
Document: Constitution of the Panel Established at the Request of Brazil Note by the Secretariat
Date: 17 May 2001
Document codes: WT/DS222/3; WT/DS222/2; WT/DS222/2
Complainant: Brazil
Respondent: Canada
Third parties: Australia, EU, India, U.S.
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. 1, 3  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)

CANADA – EXPORT CREDITS AND LOAN GUARANTEES FOR
REGIONAL AIRCRAFT
Constitution of the Panel Established at the Request of Brazil
Note by the Secretariat
1. At its meeting on 12 March 2001, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) established a panel
pursuant to the request of Brazil (), in accordance with Article 6 of the Dispute
Settlement Understanding (DSU) (WT/DSB/M/101).
2. At that meeting, the parties to the dispute also agreed that the Panel should have standard
terms of reference. The terms of reference are, therefore, the following:
"To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited
by Brazil in document , the matter referred to the DSB by Brazil 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 7 May 2001, Brazil requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the
Panel, pursuant to paragraph 7 of Article 8 of the DSU. This paragraph provides:
"If there is no agreement on the panelists within 20 days after the date of the
establishment of a panel, at the request of either party, the Director-General, in
consultation with the Chairman of the DSB and the Chairman of the relevant Council or
Committee, shall determine the composition of the panel by appointing the panellists
whom the Director-General considers most appropriate in accordance with any relevant
special or additional rules or procedures of the covered agreement or covered
agreements which are at issue in the dispute, after consulting with the parties to the
dispute. The Chairman of the DSB shall inform the Members of the composition of the
panel thus formed no later than 10 days after the date the Chairman receives such a
request."
1
4. On 11 May 2001, the Director-General accordingly composed the panel as follows:
Chairman: Mr. William J. Davey
Members: Mr. Seung Wha Chang
Ms. Usha Dwarka-Canabady

1 Paragraph 12 of Article 4 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures provides:
"For purposes of disputes conducted pursuant to this Article, except for time-periods
specifically prescribed in this Article, time-per iods applicable under the DSU for the conduct
of such disputes shall be half the time prescribed therein."

5. Australia, the European Communities, India, and the United States have reserved their rights
to participate in the panel proceedings as third parties.
CANADA – EXPORT CREDITS AND LOAN GUARANTEES FOR REGIONAL AIRCRAFT
Document: Communication from the Chairman of the Panel
Date: 10 August 2001
Document codes: WT/DS222/4
Complainant: Brazil
Respondent: Canada
Third parties: Australia, EU, India, U.S.
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. 1, 3  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)

CANADA – EXPORT CREDITS AND LOAN GUARANTEES FOR
REGIONAL AIRCRAFT
Communication from the Chairman of the Panel
The following communication, dated 9 August 2001, 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 writin g of the reasons for the delay, together with an
estimate of the period within which it will issue its report.
Article 4.12 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures states that, for
purposes of disputes conducted pursuant to this Article, except for time-periods specifically
prescribed in this Article, time-periods applicable under the DSU for the conduct of such disputes
shall be half the time prescribed therein.
The Panel on "" was
established by the DSB on 12 March 2001 and composed on 11 May 2001.
It will not, however, be possible for the Panel to complete its work within three months from
composition due to the parties' wish to use more than half the time-periods prescribed in Appendix 3
of the DSU.
The Panel expects to complete its work by October 2001.
CANADA – EXPORT CREDITS AND LOAN GUARANTEES FOR REGIONAL AIRCRAFT
Document: Communication from the Chairman of the Panel
Date: 18 December 2001
Document codes: WT/DS222/5
Complainant: Brazil
Respondent: Canada
Third parties: Australia, EU, India, U.S.
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. 1, 3  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)

CANADA – EXPORT CREDITS AND LOAN GUARANTEES FOR
REGIONAL AIRCRAFT
Communication from the Chairman of the Panel
The following communication, dated 14 December 2001, 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 writin g of the reasons for the delay, together with an
estimate of the period within which it will issue its report.
Article 4.12 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures states that, for
purposes of disputes conducted pursuant to this Article, except for time-periods specifically
prescribed in this Article, time-periods applicable under the DSU for the conduct of such disputes
shall be half the time prescribed therein.
The Panel on "" was
established by the DSB on 12 March 2001 and composed on 11 May 2001.
In a communication dated 9 August 2001, circul ated as document , the Panel
indicated that it would not be possible to complete its work within three months from composition due
to the parties' wish to use more than half the time-periods prescribed in Appendix 3 of the DSU. The
Panel indicated that it expected to complete its work by October 2001.
Further to that communication, the Panel wishes to indicate that its final report was issued to
the parties in early November 2001. Owing to work on preparation of a public version of the report,
however, the report will be circulated to Members in late January 2002.
CANADA – EXPORT CREDITS AND LOAN GUARANTEES FOR REGIONAL AIRCRAFT
Document: Recourse by Canada  to Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement Constitution of the Arbitrator Note by the Secretariat
Date: 12 July 2002
Document codes: WT/DS222/9; WT/DS222/8
Complainant: Brazil
Respondent: Canada
Third parties: Australia, EU, India, U.S.
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. 1, 3  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)

CANADA – EXPORT CREDITS AND LOAN GUARANTEES
FOR REGIONAL AIRCRAFT
Recourse by Canada to Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement
Constitution of the Arbitrator
Note by the Secretariat
1. At its meeting on 24 June 2002, the Dispute Sett lement Body (DSB) agreed that the matter
raised by Canada in document shall be referred to arbitration in accordance with Article
22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement.
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
1
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."
3. Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement provides as follows:
"In the event a party to the dispute requests arbitration under paragraph 6 of Article 22 of the
Dispute Settlement Understanding ("DSU"), the arbitrator shall determine whether the
countermeasures are appropriate."
4. The original panel will carry out the Arbitration, namely:
Chairman: Mr. William Davey
Members: Mr. Seung Wha Chang
Ms Usha Dwarka-Canabady
CANADA – EXPORT CREDITS AND LOAN GUARANTEES FOR REGIONAL AIRCRAFT
Document: Panel Report Action by the Dispute Settlement Body
Date: 27 March 2002
Document codes: WT/DS222/6; WT/DS222/R
Complainant: Brazil
Respondent: Canada
Third parties: Australia, EU, India, U.S.
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. 1, 3  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)

CANADA – EXPORT CREDITS AND LOAN GUARANTEES FOR
REGIONAL AIRCRAFT
Panel Report
Action by the Dispute Settlement Body
At its meeting on 19 February 2002, the Dispute Settlement Body adopted the Panel report on
"" ( and Corr.1).
CANADA - CRÉDITS À L'EXPORTATION ET GARANTIES DE PRÊTS
Groupe spécial intitulé "Canada - Crédits à l'e xportation et garanties de prêts accordés pour les
aéronefs régionaux" ().
CANADÁ - CRÉDITOS A LA EXPORTACIÓN Y GARANTÍAS
Informe del Grupo Especial
Actuación del Órgano de Solución de Diferencias
En su reunión de 19 de febrero de 2002, el Órgano de Solución de Diferencias adoptó el
las aeronaves regionales" ().
CANADA- EXPORT CREDITS AND LOAN GUARANTEES FOR REGIONAL AIRCRAFT
Document: Report of the Panel Corrigendum Pages B-1 and B-7 The title of Annex B-3 should be amended to read:  "Submission of Canada Regarding Jurisdictional Issues". Pages B-1 and B-91 The title of Annex B-9 should be amended to read:  "Responses of Canada to Questions from the Panel Prior to the Second Meeting of the Panel". Annex B-10 On page B-104, footnote 16 to paragraph 14 should be renumbered as footnote 1 and all subsequent footnotes should follow consecutively.
Date: 28 January 2002
Document codes: WT/DS222/R/Corr.1
Complainant: Brazil
Respondent: Canada
Third parties: Australia, EU, India, U.S.
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. 1, 3  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)

CANADA- EXPORT CREDITS AND LOAN GUARANTEES
FOR REGIONAL AIRCRAFT
Report of the Panel
Corrigendum
Pages B-1 and B-7
The title of Annex B-3 should be amended to read: "Submission of Canada Regarding
Jurisdictional Issues".
Pages B-1 and B-91
The title of Annex B-9 should be amended to read: "Responses of Canada to Questions from
the Panel Prior to the Second Meeting of the Panel".
Annex B-10
On page B-104, footnote 16 to paragraph 14 should be renumbered as footnote 1 and all
subsequent footnotes should follow consecutively.

* In English only.
CANADA – EXPORT CREDITS AND LOAN GUARANTEES FOR REGIONAL AIRCRAFT
Document: Recourse by Brazil to Article 4.10 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures and Article 22.2 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes Corrigendum On page 1, penultimate paragraph, 1st line:  "Article 22.2(a)" should read "Article 22.2". CANADA - CRÉDITS À L'EXPORTATION ET GARANTIES DE PRÊTS ACCORDÉS POUR  LES AÉRONEFS RÉGIONAUX Recours du Brésil à l'article 4.10 de l'Accord sur les subventions et les mesures compensatoires et à l'article 22:2 du Mémorandum d'accord sur les règles et procédures régissant le règlement des différends Corrigendum À la page 1, à la première ligne de l'avant-dernier paragraphe, remplacer "article 22:2 a)" par "article 22:2". CANADÁ - CRÉDITOS A LA EXPORTACIÓN Y GARANTÍAS DE PRÉSTAMOS PARA LAS AERONAVES REGIONALES
Date: 31 May 2002
Document codes: WT/DS222/7/Corr.1
Complainant: Brazil
Respondent: Canada
Third parties: Australia, EU, India, U.S.
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. 1, 3  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)

CANADA – EXPORT CREDITS AND LOAN GUARANTEES
FOR REGIONAL AIRCRAFT
Recourse by Brazil to Article 4.10 of the Agreement on Subsidies
and Countervailing Measures and Article 22.2 of the Understanding
on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes
Corrigendum
On page 1, penultimate paragraph, 1st line: "Article 22.2(a)" should read "Article 22.2".
CANADA - CRÉDITS À L'EXPORTATION ET GARANTIES DE PRÊTS
Corrigendum
À la page 1, à la première ligne de l'avant-dernier paragraphe, remplacer "article 22:2 a)" par
"article 22:2".
CANADÁ - CRÉDITOS A LA EXPORTACIÓN Y GARANTÍAS
solución de diferencias
Corrigendum
En la página 1, último párrafo, primera línea: en lugar de "párrafo 2 a) del artículo 22", debe
decir "párrafo 2 del artículo 22".
CANADA – EXPORT CREDITS AND LOAN GUARANTEES FOR REGIONAL AIRCRAFT
Document: Recourse by Brazil to Article 22.7 of the DSU and Article 4.10 of the SCM Agreement
Date: 7 March 2003
Document codes: WT/DS222/10; WT/DS222/7
Complainant: Brazil
Respondent: Canada
Third parties: Australia, EU, India, U.S.
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. 1, 3  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)

CANADA – EXPORT CREDITS AND LOAN GUARANTEES
FOR REGIONAL AIRCRAFT
Recourse by Brazil to Article 22.7 of the DSU and Article 4.10 of the SCM Agreement
The following communication, dated 6 March 2003, from the Permanent Mission of Brazil to
the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 22.7 of the DSU and
Article 4.10 of the SCM Agreement.
By letter dated 23 May 2002 (circulated on 24 May 2002 as document ), Brazil
requested authorization from the DSB, pursuant to Article 22.2 of the DSU and Article 4.10 of the
SCM Agreement, to take appropriate countermeasures against Canada in the dispute Canada - Export
Credits and Loan Guarantees for Regional Aircraft (WT/DS222). By letter dated 21 June 2002
(circulated as document on 24 June 2002), Canada objected to the level of suspension
proposed by Brazil and, as a result, the matter was referred to arbitration pursuant to Article 22.6 of
the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement.
The Arbitrator circulated its award () on 17 February 2003. The Arbitrator
decided that the suspension by Brazil of the application of obligations under Article VI:6(a) of GATT
1994 and under the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures, and of tariff concessions and related
obligations under GATT 1994 covering trade in a total amount of US$247,797,000 would constitute
"appropriate countermeasures" under Article 4.10 of the SCM Agreement.
Accordingly, pursuant to Article 22.7 of the DSU, Brazil intends to request authorization
from the DSB to take action against Canada by suspending concessions or other obligations at the
level set out in the Arbitrator's award. The form in which Brazil intends to implement this
authorization remains as set out in Brazil's original request circulated on 24 May 2002
CANADA – EXPORT CREDITS AND LOAN GUARANTEES FOR REGIONAL AIRCRAFT
Document: Objection by Canada to Recourse by Brazil to Article 22.2 of the DSU and Article 4.10 of the SCM Agreement and Request by Canada for Arbitration under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement
Date: 24 June 2002
Document codes: WT/DS222/8
Complainant: Brazil
Respondent: Canada
Third parties: Australia, EU, India, U.S.
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. 1, 3  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)

CANADA – EXPORT CREDITS AND LOAN GUARANTEES
FOR REGIONAL AIRCRAFT
Objection by Canada to Recourse by Brazil to Article 22.2 of the DSU
and Article 4.10 of the SCM Agreement and
Request by Canada for Arbitration under Article 22.6 of the DSU
and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement
The following communication, dated 21 June 2002, from the Permanent Mission of Canada to
the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 22.6 of the DSU and
Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement.
Pursuant to Article 22.2 of the DSU and Article 4.10 of the SCM Agreement, Brazil requested
that the DSB, at its meeting of 3 June 2002, grant Brazil authorization to take appropriate
countermeasures in the amount of US$3.36 billion (, 24 May 2002 and
, 31 May 2002).
At its meeting of 3 June 2002, the DSB deferred consideration of this item. In a letter dated
13 June 2002, Brazil requested that its request be considered again at the next regular meeting of the
DSB on 24 June 2002.
Canada objects to the countermeasures proposed by Brazil in document In
Canada's view, the countermeasures requested are not appropriate.
Furthermore, Canada considers that, with respect to part of Brazil's request, the situation
described in Article 22.2 of the DSU has not occurred. The reason for this is that Brazil's request is
based, in part, on an allegation that Canada has not complied with the DSB's recommendations
because it has failed to withdraw subsidies in resp ect of certain aircraft options in a transaction
considered by the panel in this dispute. However, neither the panel nor the DSB found that these
options are being subsidized, and they are not being subsidized. With respect to these options, there
are no subsidies for Canada to withdraw and no recommendation of the DSB for Canada to comply
with. Canada has repeatedly asked Brazil to acknowledge this but Brazil has refused to do so.
Accordingly, because the situation described in Article 22.2 has not occurred with respect to
this element of Brazil's request, a necessary precondition for the operation of Article 22.6 has not been
satisfied and the DSB has no authority to consider the authorization requested by Brazil. Canada
therefore requests that this item be removed from the agenda of the DSB.

If, for any reason you consider that, despite the foregoing, this item should otherwise remain
on the agenda of the DSB for consideration under Article 22.2, then in accordance with Article 22.6
and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement, the matter shall be referred to arbitration.
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES -   TARIFF-RATE QUOTA ON CORN GLUTEN FEED FROM THE UNITED STATES
Document: Request for Consultations by the United States
Date: 30 January 2001
Document codes: WT/DS223/1; G/L/436; G/SG/D14/1
Complainant: U.S.
Respondent: EU
Dispute stage: Consultation
Agreements cited: Art. I, II, XIX  GATT 1994Art. 8.1, 8.2, 8.3  Safeguards

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES - TARIFF-RATE QUOTA ON CORN GLUTEN FEED
FROM THE UNITED STATES
Request for Consultations by the United States
The following communication, dated 25 January 2001, from the Permanent Mission of the
United States to the Permanent Delegation of the European Commission and to the Chairman of the
Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated in accordance with Article 4.4 of the DSU.
My authorities have instructed me to reques t consultations with the European Communities
pursuant to Articles 1 and 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement
of Disputes (DSU), Article XXIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994),
and Article 14 of the Agreement on Safeguards (Safeguards Agreement) with respect to the
application by the European Communities (EC) of a tariff-rate quota (TRQ) on corn gluten feed
imported from the United States.
On 20 August 1998, the EC published Council Regulation No. 1804/98 of 14 August 1998,
which 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 United States. The TRQ was made applicable beginning on the earlier
of 1 June 2001 or five days after the date of WT O Dispute Settlement Body's adoption of a decision
that the U.S. safeguard measure on wheat gluten was "incompatible with the WTO Agreements". The
EC has cited Articles 8.2 and 8.3 of the Safeguards Agreement as authority for this measure. Its
representatives have stated that the DSB adopti on of its recommendations and rulings in "United
States - Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Wheat Gluten from the European Communities"
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. In addition, the EC at no point consulted with the United States on how measures imposed by
the EC might meet the requirement to maintain substantially equivalent levels of concessions and
other obligations to that existing under the GATT 1994. Therefore, it 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 Member to suspend concessions or other obligations.
Accordingly, the imposition of the TRQ on corn gluten feed imported from the United States
appears to be inconsistent with Articles I, II, and XIX of the GATT 1994, and Articles 8.1, 8.2 and 8.3
of the Safeguards Agreement. The EC's measures also appear to nullify or impair the benefits
accruing to the United States directly or indirectly under the cited agreements.
We look forward to receiving your reply to the present request and to fixing a mutually
convenient date for consultations.
UNITED STATES – US PATENTS CODE
Document: Request for Consultations by Brazil
Date: 7 February 2001
Document codes: WT/DS224/1; G/L/437; G/TRIMS/D/18; IP/D/24
Complainant: Brazil
Respondent: U.S.
Dispute stage: Consultation
Agreements cited: Art. III, XI  GATT 1994Art. 2  Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs)Art. 27, 28  Intellectual Property (TRIPS)

UNITED STATES – US PATENTS CODE
Request for Consultations by Brazil
The following communication, dated 31 January 2001, from the Permanent Mission of Brazil
to the Permanent Mission of the United States and to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is
circulated in accordance with Article 4.4 of the DSU.
My authorities have instructed me to reques t 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 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994
(GATT 1994), Article 64 of the Agreement on Trade- Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
(TRIPS Agreement) and Article 8 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures
(TRIMs Agreement), concerning the provisions of the United States Patent Code (United States
Code – Title 35 – Patents), 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, as illustrated by, but
not limited to, the examples below.
The United States Patents Code stipulates that no small business firm or non-profit
organization which receives title to any subject invention and no assignee of any such small business
firm or non-profit organization shall grant to any person the exclusive right to use or sell any subject
invention in the United States unless such person agrees that any products embodying the subject
invention or produced through the use of the subject invention will be manufactured substantially in
the United States. In addition, each funding agreement with a small business firm or non-profit
organization shall contain appropriate provisions to effectuate the above-mentioned requirement.
The Patents Code also imposes statutory restrictions which limit the right to use or sell any
federally owned invention in the United States 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 United States.
Brazil would be interested to examine these and other provisions of the US Patents Code in
consultations with the United States, with a view to understand how the United States 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.
We look forward to receiving your reply to the present request and to fixing a mutually
convenient date for these consultations in Geneva.
UNITED STATES – US PATENTS CODE
Document: Request to Join Consultations Communication from India
Date: 19 February 2001
Document codes: WT/DS224/2
Complainant: Brazil
Respondent: U.S.
Dispute stage: Consultation
Agreements cited: Art. III, XI  GATT 1994Art. 2  Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs)Art. 27, 28  Intellectual Property (TRIPS)

UNITED STATES – US PATENTS CODE
Request to Join Consultations
Communication from India
The following communication, dated 16 February 2001, from the Permanent Mission of India
to the Permanent Mission of the United States, the Permanent Mission of Brazil 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 (DSU), the Government of India hereby notifies its desire to be joined in
consultations requested by the Permanent Mission of Brazil to the Permanent Mission of the
United States pursuant to Article 4 of the DSU, Article XXII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade 1994 (GATT 1994), Article 64 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual
Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) and Article 8 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Investment
Measures (TRIMs Agreement) concerning the provisions of the United States Patent Code
(United States Code – Title 35 – Patents), in partic ular those of Chapter 18[38] – "Patent Rights in
Inventions Made with Federal Assistance". The 31 January 2001 communication from the Permanent
Mission of Brazil to the Permanent Mission of the United States was circulated to WTO Members on
7 February 2001 (; ; ; ).
It is well known that India has a substantial trade as well as systemic interest in these
consultations. We would be grateful of being informed of the date and venue of the consultations.
UNITED STATES – ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON SEAMLESS PIPE FROM ITALY
Document: Request to Join Consultations Communication from Japan
Date: 21 February 2001
Document codes: WT/DS225/2
Complainant: EU
Respondent: U.S.
Dispute stage: Consultation
Agreements cited: Art. 5.8, 11.1, 11.3, 18.4  Anti-dumpingArt. XVI:4  Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization

UNITED STATES – ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES
ON SEAMLESS PIPE FROM ITALY
Request to Join Consultations
Communication from Japan
The following communication, dated 19 February 2001, from the Permanent Mission of Japan
to the Permanent Mission of the United States, the Permanent Delegation of the European
Commission 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 (DSU), the Government of Japan hereby notifies the
Government of the United States that, in light of the substantial trade interest of Japan, it desires to be
joined in the consultations requested by the European Communities in a communication circulated to
WTO Members on 8 February 2001 (, , ) entitled "".
Being a Member whose exports have been subject to the sunset review pursuant to the
anti-dumping law of the United States, Japan has a substantial trade interest in this case.