Panel
set up in a new case Back
to topCase
DS202: US — definitive safeguard measures on imports
of circular welded carbon quality line pipe from Korea
Since
this was the Rep. of Korea’s second request for a
panel (details in WT/DS202/4), the DSB approved its
establishment. The EU, Japan, Canada and Mexico reserved
their rights in the case as third parties. The EU also
said it is preparing its own request for consultations
(the first step required in a dispute) on US measures on
line pipe and welded steel rod. It expressed concern
about what it described as the US’s growing recourse
to measures to protect its steel industry.
Panels
recalled in two old cases (‘recourse to DSU Article 21.5’)
Back
to top
Case
DS58: United States — Import prohibition of certain
shrimp and shrimp products (the “shrimp-turtle”
case)
The
DSB approved referring this case to the original panel in
response to a call from Malaysia (document
WT/DS58/17)which said the US’s continued
restrictions on these products are a violation of WTO
agreements. The US said the original panel and Appellate
Body reports did not require it to get rid of its
measures, simply to modify some of the details. Thailand
later said the situation needs clarifying. India agreed
with Malaysia’s opinion that the US is still
violating WTO agreements.
The
US also pointed out that Pakistan, one of the countries
complaining in the original case, has obtained
certification from the US that it is applying protection
for endangered sea turtles that are equivalent to the
protection required by US law and therefore no longer
faces restrictions. Malaysia did not try a similar
solution, the US said.
Canada,
Japan, India, Hong Kong China, Ecuador, Thailand and
Mexico reserved third party rights, and Australia said it
is considering the issue.
> Summary
of this case
Case
DS132: Mexico — anti-dumping investigation of
high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) from the United States
The
DSB approved the US’s request (document
WT/DS132/6)for the original panel to consider whether
Mexico’s anti-dumping investigation is still
violating WTO agreements. Mexico said it is convinced it
is complying but did not block the panel’s recall.
The EU and Mauritius reserved third party rights.
First
time requests for panels to be set up Back
to top
Because
these were first-time requests and they were opposed, the
panels were not set up.
Case
DS120: India — Measures affecting export of certain
commodities
The
EU presented its request for a panel (document
WT/DS120/2) in this case which deals with export
restraints on all types of raw hides and skins except
lamb fur skin. India said it announced on
20 October, too recent for the EU to be informed,
that it was scrapping its export licensing requirement.
India said it hopes the EU can withdraw the request for a
panel and therefore it opposed the creation of a panel in
this case. The EU thanked India and said it would convey
the information to Brussels.
Case DS146:
India — Measures affecting the automotive sector
The
EU presented its request (document WT/DS146/4). India
denied that its measures violate the Trade-Related
Investment Measures (TRIMs) Agreement, but argued,
supported by Pakistan and the Philippines, that if the
measures do violate TRIMs, the EU should wait until the
outcome of discussions on this in the General Council and
Goods Council.
Case
DS195: Philippines — measures affecting trade and
investment in the motor vehicle sector
The
complaint is brought by the US (document WT/DS195/3) and
also deals with TRIMs measures, but in this case the
Philippines has formally asked for the deadline for it to
scrap these measures to be extended.
The
Philippines, supported by Japan, Malaysia, Argentina,
Pakistan, Mexico, Indonesia and Mauritius, argued that
the US should wait for the outcome of discussions in the
General Council and Goods Council. They cited the
Philippines’ extension request under discussion in
the Goods Council, the General Council chairperson’s
conclusion on 17 December 1999 that members would be
restrained when dealing with “implementation”
issues such as TRIMs deadlines, and the General
Council’s 8 May 2000 decision on how the
discussion on implementation would proceed. The US argued
that a request to extend TRIMs measures could not be used
to justify failure to comply with TRIMs obligations.
Status
reports: Surveillance of implementation of
recommendations adopted by the DSB Back
to top
Case DS27:
European Communities — Regime for the Importation,
Sale and Distribution of Bananas
The
EU presented its latest decisions on making its banana
regime conform with its WTO obligations (document
WT/DS27/51/Add.12). This includes a “first-come,
first-served” administration for tariff quotas in a
transition period, leading to a flat tariff system.
“The
EC envisages to open three tariff rate quotas which are
open for bananas of all origins. The management of all
three tariff rate quotas will be identical with a tariff
preference for ACP countries. The tariff level will not
be prohibitive for bananas of non-ACP origin. In case
this assessment proves to be wrong, the EC will reduce
the in-quota tariff for non-ACP bananas in the third
tariff quota during the year, as necessary,” the
document says.
Other
countries called for more details. Honduras, Panama,
Costa Rica, Guatemala, Mexico, Dominica, Colombia, St
Lucia, Mauritius, Surinam, opposed the first-come first
served solution, arguing in favour of basing the solution
on a Caribbean proposal that tariff quota allocations
should be based on historical market shares. Latin
American countries also questioned the validity of
setting preferential tariff rates that could be adjusted
in the third quota, while Caribbean speakers supported
the preferential rates. They referred to a statement
issued on 17 October 2000 in Panama, by Colombia,
Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama and
Venezuela which rejected the EU proposal.
The
US also opposed the plan but said a lot depends on the
details. Ecuador supported the first-come, first-served
(i.e. “chronological”) proposal. Jamaica wanted
to preserve a system of quota allocations based on
historical shares.
The
EU said it would continue to listen, but this seemed the
best solution. Previous attempts to agree on shares of
the quotas based on historical patterns had failed, the
EU said.
Case DS76:
Japan — Measures Affecting Agricultural Products
Japan
(document WT/DS76/11/Add.8) and the US said they were
continuing consultations and looked forward to an early
resolution. The EU expressed concern that varietal
testing of agricultural products continues in Japan 19
months after the rulings were adopted, and called for a
swift resolution. Australia also repeated its interest in
this case.
Cases DS103
and DS113: Canada — Measures Affecting the
Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products
Canada
reported (document WT/DS103/12/Add.3 and
WT/DS113/12/Add.3) on recent consultations with New
Zealand and the US. The two complainants expressed
concern that the new measures that Canada has introduced
still amount to export subsidies because milk is
available for export only at low prices. The US added its
concern that because Canada is no longer monitoring these
provincial-level programmes, there are no figures
available even though they should be included in
Canada’s agricultural export subsidy reduction
commitments.
Case DS90:
India — Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of
Agricultural, Textile and Industrial Products
India
reported (document WT/DS90/16/Add.2) that it was still on
target to complete its compliance by 1 April 2001.
The US acknowledged this.
Case DS34:
Turkey — Restrictions on Imports of Textile and
Clothing Products
Turkey
said (document WT/DS34/12/Add.2) it is continuing to hold
internal consultations on implementing the dispute
ruling. India asked for more information on the internal
consultations and said it is willing to hold further
consultations with Turkey.
Implementation
of the recommendations of the DSB Back
to top
Cases
DS136 and 162: United States — Anti-Dumping Act of
1916
The
US said it is preparing how to comply with the ruling.
Japan asked for more details. The EU also said the US
should examine cases currently before US courts which use
this law — now found to violate WTO commitments
— as a basis.
Case DS170
Canada — Term of Patent Protection
Canada
said it is examining how to comply with the ruling. The
US expressed concern about reports in the media which it
said quoted a Canadian official as saying one of the
options being considered is non-compliance.
Agenda
items withdrawn Back
to top
Case DS122:
Thailand — anti-dumping duties on angles, shapes and
sections of iron or non-alloy steel and H-beams from
Poland
Case
DS135: European Communities — measures affecting
asbestos and asbestos — containing products (case
brought by Canada)
Because
Thailand and Canada said they would appeal the respective
cases, the panel reports in these two cases were not
adopted, and will be considered when the appeal is
completed.
Other
business Back
to top
Case DS114:
Canada: Patent protection for pharmaceutical products
Canada
reported it has scrapped regulations known as the
“stockpiling exception” and therefore its
pharmaceutical patent law now conforms with the WTO
intellectual property (TRIPS) agreement.
The
next regular meeting will be on
17 November 2000.
|
