|
Surveillance of implementation
back to top
DS160: United States — Section 110(5) of the US copyright act
The US stated that Congress had made good progress on this issue and that
it would notify additional information in the near future.
The European Communities welcomed US' efforts.
DS136
& DS162: United States — Anti-dumping Act of 1916
The US recalled that, on 4 March 2003, legislation repealing the 1916 Act
had been introduced in the US House of Representatives.
The EC urged the US to put a definitive end to this dispute by repealing
the 1916 Anti-dumping Act and by terminating the on-going court cases.
Japan urged the US to ensure that bills repealing the 1916 Act with proper
retroactive effects were introduced and passed before the summer recess of
the current session of the 108th Congress.
DS176: United States — Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998
The US stated that the US Administration continued to work with Congress
to resolve this dispute.
The EC stated that the new deadline for implementation would expire at the
end of next month and that the US' status report did not show any sign of
concrete action towards implementation.
Like the EC, Cuba referred to the approaching deadline and expressed
concern.
DS184: United States — Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled
steel products from Japan
The US referred to the letter sent by United States Trade Representative
Robert Zoellick and Secretary of Commerce Donald Evans to Congress
supporting specific amendments to the Tariff Act of 1930 to implement the
DSB's ruling and recommendations.
Japan stated that it was aware of the letter and urged the US to implement
before the Congress' summer recess.
DS211: Egypt
— Definitive anti-dumping measures on steel rebar from
Turkey
Egypt said that its investigating authority was currently re-examining its
dumping calculations concerning two Turkish companies. Egypt added that it
would submit its revised injury and dumping assessment to the interested
parties.
Turkey commended Egypt's constructive approach and said that it hoped to
notify soon a resolution to this dispute.
Panels established
back to top
DS261: Uruguay — Tax treatment on certain products
Chile first requested a panel on 15 April 2003. Presenting its second
request, Chile stated that despite Uruguay's efforts to eliminate the
discrimination, changes made were only limited and partial. Chile thus
requested a panel for the second time but added that it was still
interested in a bilateral solution.
Uruguay regretted Chile's decision to ask for a panel instead of
continuing consultations. Uruguay added that it was still ready to examine
with Chile a mutually acceptable solution.
The DSB established a panel and the following Members requested to be
third parties: European Communities, Mexico and the United States.
DS268: United States — Sunset reviews of anti-dumping measures on oil
country tubular goods from Argentina
Argentina made its first request on 15 April 2003. Reiterating its
request, Argentina expressed its disappointment to have to resort to a
panel but explained that this was inevitable given the two governments'
different views of the Anti-Dumping Agreement obligations.
The United States commented that it continued to believe that Argentina's
panel request failed to conform to the DSB requirements.
The DSB established a panel and the following countries requested to be
third parties: European Communities, Japan, Korea, Mexico and Chinese
Taipei.
Panel report adopted
back to top
DS241: Argentina — Definitive anti-dumping duties on poultry from
Brazil
Brazil welcomed the panel report which found that Argentina acted
inconsistently with its obligations under the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
Argentina said that it was satisfied with the panel which ruled that
certain aspects of Argentina's anti-dumping measure were inconsistent with
the Anti-Dumping Agreement but not others, of particular importance to
Argentina. Argentina added that, following a revision, the anti-dumping
measure at stake was no longer in force.
The US commented on certain systemic points of the panel report.
The DSB adopted the report.
Procedures for developing information
back to top
DS267: United States — Subsidies on upland cotton
Brazil complained that 60 days after the panel had been established, the
representative to facilitate the information-gathering process still could
not be designated. Brazil also complained about the lack of information
coming from the US and called the US' absence of cooperation strikingly
telling. Brazil said that it would address the implications of the US
refusal to provide information to the panel.
The US noted that it was Brazil's decision to invoke the Subsidies
Agreement prior to the expiration of the
Peace Clause
of the Agriculture Agreement. The US stated that Brazil was simply not
entitled to have recourse to the Subsidies Agreement's Annex V process
since the measures at issue were covered by the Peace Clause. The US added
that, in the unlikely event the panel were to determine that the Peace
Clause did not preclude Brazil's claims, the parties could then engage in
the Annex V process.
The EC and Argentina argued that a facilitator should have been appointed.
India expressed its concern about the negative impact of US cotton
subsidies on other countries.
Other business back to top
Concerning dispute DS238 on Definitive safeguard measures on imports of preserved peaches,
Argentina announced its intention to implement the DSB rulings and
recommendations and stated that it would require a reasonable period of
time.
Chile commented that the only possible implementation was a removal of the
safeguard measures as quickly as possible.
Upcoming meetings
back to top
The DSB will meet on 24 June 2003. |
