|
Surveillance
of implementation
back to top
DS160: United States — Section 110(5) of the US copyright act
The
US said that it was still seeking a positive and mutually acceptable
resolution of the dispute with the European Communities. The US added that
the US Administration would continue to engage the US Congress on this
issue as soon as it resumed work.
The
European Communities expressed its disappointment and urged the US to take
rapid and concrete action to the settle the dispute.
DS136
& DS162:
United States — Anti-dumping Act of 1916
The
US said that, as the new US Congress resumed work, the US Administration
would continue to work with it to achieve further progress in resolving
this dispute.
The
EC requested the US Administration to convey to the US Congress that the
lack of implementation of this ruling was seriously affecting the
credibility of the US’s commitments to the WTO dispute settlement
system. The EC added that a repeal of the 1916 Anti-Dumping Act with
effects on future cases only could not be considered a satisfactory
solution.
Japan
mentioned that the US Congress had not passed the bills repealing the 1916
Act before the end of its session in 2002. Japan said that it was truly
regrettable and disappointing that the US was yet to implement when two
years had passed since the adoption of the reports of the Appellate Body
and the panel.
DS176:
United States — Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998
The
US recalled that on 20 December 2002 the US and the EC had agreed to
extend the reasonable period of time for implementation until 30 June 2003. The US added that, as the new US Congress resumed work, the US
Administration would work with it to resolve this dispute.
The
EC acknowledged that it had given more time to the US to comply and said
that it now expected the US Administration to work actively with the new
US Congress. The EC added that the US should clarify that Section 211 did
not apply to a new trademark after a former trademark, to which Section
211 may have applied, had been abandoned.
Cuba
said that it was disappointed with the lack of progress made by the US.
DS184:
United States — Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel
products from Japan
The
US said that in respect to the recommendations and rulings of the DSB that
were not addressed in the 22 November 2002 antidumping duty determination
of the US Department of Commerce, the US Administration would continue to
consult and to work with the Congress as it resumed its work with a view
to resolving this matter.
Japan
expressed regret and concern about the delay in implementation by the US.
Implementation
of the recommendations of the DSB
back to top
DS212:
United States — Countervailing measures concerning certain products from
the European Communities
The
US said that it intended to implement the DSB recommendations and rulings.
The US added that it would need a reasonable period of time in which to do
so and that it was ready to discuss this matter with the EC.
The
EC said that this dispute had a long history and that the principle
underlying the findings in this case had been established by the Appellate
Body in the case “United States — Imposition of countervailing
duties on lead & bismuth carbon steel from the UK” (DS138). The
EC added that it hoped that this time the US would ensure a prompt and
good faith implementation of the WTO rulings. The EC said that the US
would only require a very short — if at all — period of time for
implementation.
Panels
established
back to top
DS246:
European Communities — Conditions for the granting of tariff preferences
to developing countries
India
requested the establishment of a panel for the first time at the DSB
meeting on 19 December 2002.
India
said that the generalized system of preferences (GSP) under the Enabling
Clause was an exception to the
most-favoured-nation (MFN) obligation only to the extent that it allowed
discrimination in favour of developing countries. India argued that the
object of the exception was to facilitate and promote the trade of
developing countries and that the imposition of conditions unrelated to
this objective violated the MFN treatment obligations and the Enabling
Clause. India added that it had taken up these issues bilaterally with the
EC but that it had found no response to its concerns.
The
EC said that the EC GSP scheme was an autonomous regime granted on a
non-reciprocal, generalized and non-discriminatory basis, in full
conformity with the EC’s GATT/WTO commitments, including the Enabling
Clause. The EC reminded the DSB that its special incentive under the GSP
to combat drug production and trafficking, as well as the special
incentive arrangements for labour and the environment, were fully in line
with internationally recognized objectives aimed at the promotion of
sustainable development. The EC added that the only sensible course of
action for India was to withdraw its request for the establishment of a
panel.
The
DSB agreed to establish a panel. The following Members requested to be
third parties: Sri Lanka, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Paraguay,
United States, Venezuela, Brazil, Cuba, Ecuador, Peru, Costa Rica and
Colombia.
Adoption
of report
back to top
DS217
& DS234: United States
— Continued dumping and subsidy offset act of
2000
Canada
welcomed the Appellate Body and the panel’s finding that the Continued
Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (CDSOA) was inconsistent with the
Antidumping Agreement and the Subsidies and Countervailing Measures
Agreement. Canada suggested that the US bring the CDSOA into conformity by
repealing it.
Chile,
India, Korea, Indonesia, Mexico, Japan, and the EC also urged the US the
repeal the Act.
The
US urged Members to object to the Appellate Body report but said that it
would respect its WTO obligations and would implement the DSB
recommendations and rulings.
The
DSB adopted the recommendations and rulings of the Appellate Body and of
the panel as amended by the Appellate Body.
Proposed
amendments to the working procedures for appellate review
The
DSB reviewed some amendments to the working procedures for appellate
review proposed by the Appellate Body. The Chairman said that he would
transmit Members’ comments to the Appellate Body by 31 January 2003.
Next
meeting
back to top
The
next regular meeting of the DSB will take place on 19 February 2003.
|
