Case
DS27: EC — Regime for the importation, sale and
distribution of bananasThe
EU reported that its Commission would soon consider a
“first come, first served” system for
administering its tariff rate quotas which would apply
during the transition to a tariff-only system for banana
imports.
Ecuador,
Guatemala, Honduras and Panama expressed concern that the
proposal would only prolong the dispute instead of
solving it, and that the EU’s banana regime remains
a violation of WTO rules.
The
US questioned why the EU had not examined “first
come, first served” before.
St.
Lucia took the opposing view that “first come, first
served” and tariff-only systems favour larger
exporters with more resources to produce and transport
bananas. It stressed that any solution should take into
account the interests of all the parties concerned, in
particular the most vulnerable.
Case
DS76: Japan — Measures affecting agricultural
products
Japan
and the US said they were still consulting in an effort
to sort out technical questions to resolve this case,
which was brought by the United States. The EU and
Australia, which reserved third party rights, expressed
regret that Japan has still not implemented the ruling 18
months after it was adopted.
Cases
DS103 and 113: Canada — Measures affecting the
importation of milk and the exportation of dairy products
Canada
said it was continuing to hold consultations with the two
complainants, the US and New Zealand, on the staged
implementation of the DSB ruling. This will be completed
by 31 December 2000, Canada said.
New
Zealand and the United Status expressed concern that
Canada’s new export schemes would continue to be
inconsistent with Canada’s WTO obligations because
Canadian provinces will continue to supply milk for
export at below market prices, meaning an export subsidy
that exceeds Canada’s commitments.
Canada
challenged this interpretation, describing its new system
as a “dramatic” change involving the
deregulation of the market and purely private
transactions between buyers and sellers.
Further
discussions on this matter are scheduled for 2 October
2000.
Case
DS90: India — Quantitative restrictions on imports
of agricultural, textile and industrial products
India
reported that half its remaining quantitative
restrictions were removed on 1 April 2000, and the rest
would be removed within the “reasonable period of
time” for implementing the ruling, which expires on
1 April 2001.
The
US, which originally brought this case to the DSB, said
it looked forward to further reports.
Case
DS34: Turkey — Restrictions on imports of textile
and clothing products
Turkey
informed the DSB that, in an effort to find a solution,
it continues to hold discussions with the EU in order to
ensure that the rights of the parties to the customs
union are preserved. Turkey said it will also consult
India (the complaining party) about implementing the
ruling.
India
questioned why the rights of members of the customs union
were related to Turkey’s WTO obligations.
The
“reasonable period of time” for complying with
the ruling expires on 7 January 2001.
Case
DS98: Korea — Definitive safeguard measure on
imports of certain dairy products
Korea
informed the DSB that on 20 May 2000, it had lifted its
safeguard measure on dairy products imports and so had
completed implementing the DSB’s recommendations in
this case. The EU welcomed Korea’s action.
Case
DS132: Mexico — Anti-dumping investigation of
high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) from the United States
Mexico
informed the DSB that on 20 September 2000 it had
published the final determination on anti-dumping
investigation of high-fructose corn syrup from the United
States and thereby complied with the Panel’s
recommendations. The US said it would examine
Mexico’s final determination.
Case
DS176: United States — Section 211 Omnibus
appropriations act of 1998
At
the request of the EU, the DSB established a panel to
examine US Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of
1998. This was the EU’s second request. Japan and
Nicaragua reserved their third-party rights to
participate in the Panel’s proceedings. Cuba
welcomed that fact that a panel has now been set up.
This
question had previously been discussed at several
meetings of the TRIPS Council. It deals with the
ownership of intellectual property such as trademarks
when property has been appropriated without compensation.
At the centre of the TRIPS Council’s discussions was
a US court’s ruling in a case that Havana Club
Holding SA and Havana Club International SA brought
against Galleon SA, Bacardi-Martini USA Inc, Gallo Wine
Distributors Inc, GWD Holdings Inc, and Premier Wine and
Spirits, over the ownership of the name “Havana
Club”.
Case
DS189: Argentina — Definitive anti-dumping measures
on carton-board imports from Germany and definitive
anti-dumping measures on imports of ceramic floor tiles
from Italy
The
EU asked for a panel to be set up. Argentina objected,
preferring to continue consultations. Because this was a
first request, the panel’s establishment was
deferred.
Case
DS202: United States — Definitive safeguard measures
on imports of circular welded carbon quality line pipe
from Korea
The
Rep of Korea asked for a panel to be set up. The US
objected. Since this was a first request the
establishment was deferred.
Case
DS166: United States — Definitive safeguard measures
on imports of wheat gluten from the European Communities
This
item was withdrawn because the US is now appealing the
panel report.
Cases
DS136 and 162: United States — Anti-dumping act of
1916
The
DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report on “United
States — Anti-Dumping Act of 1916” and the
Panel reports as upheld by the Appellate Body Report.
The
EU and Japan (the complaining parties) welcomed the
panel’s ruling that the Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 is
inconsistent with the WTO Agreement.
Without
a consensus to reject the reports, the DSB adopted them.
|
