Surveillance of implementation back to top
& DS162: United States — Anti-dumping Act of 1916
The United States said that the US Administration continued to work with
Congress to achieve further progress in resolving this dispute.
The European Communities complained that three years had passed since the
adoption of the panel and appellate body reports. The EC said that in the
absence of any signs of implementation, the EC had asked for re-activation
of the arbitration on the amount of sanctions it would be allowed to
impose against the US.
Japan called on the US to pass the legislation repealing the 1916 Act and
added that the legislation should have the proper retroactive effect to
terminate the pending cases.
DS176: United States — Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998
The US stated that the US Administration would continue to work with
Congress on appropriate statutory measures to resolve this dispute.
The EC welcomed the introduction of a bill in June 2003 in Congress that
would repeal Section 211. The EC hoped that this bill would offer a
solution to the dispute.
DS184: United States — Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel
products from Japan
The US said that the US Administration continued to work with Congress to
address the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.
Japan said that the implementation deadline was approaching and that no
bill had yet been introduced in Congress to address this dispute. Japan
added that, should the US choose not to implement, it would have the right
to apply sanctions.
— Price band system and safeguard measures relating to
certain agricultural products
Chile announced that it would put a new price band system into place on 16
December 2003 which would cover most of the products concerned by the
dispute. Other products would from that date no longer be subject to the
Argentina argued that the Appellate Body had ruled that any tariff
resulting from the price band system was inconsistent with WTO rules.
Argentina urged Chile to seek alternatives to the price band system before
the implementation deadline, on 23 December 2003.
DS219: European Communities
— Anti-dumping duties on malleable cast iron
tube or pipe fittings from Brazil
EC and Brazil announced that they had agreed to a reasonable period of
time to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB: the EC would
have seven months from the adoption of the Appellate Body and panel
reports — i.e. until 19 March 2004 — to implement.
Panel established back to top
DS290: European Communities
— Protection of trademarks and
geographical indications for agricultural products and foodstuffs
The US and Australia first requested a panel on 29 August 2003. Presenting
their second request, the United States and Australia mentioned their
serious concerns about the discriminatory nature of the EC regulation.
The US complained that the regulation did not allow the registration of
non-EC geographical indications unless the geographical indication was
from a country that offered geographical indication protection that was
equivalent to that of the EC.
Australia argued that the EC regime was inconsistent with existing WTO
rules prohibiting discriminatory treatment, did not give due protection to
trademarks, and was overly complex and prescriptive.
The EC said that its regulation was fully compatible with WTO rules.
The DSB established a single panel and the following countries requested
to be third parties: Australia, United States, Mexico, New Zealand,
Guatemala, India, Chinese Taipei, Turkey and Colombia.
Panels requested back to top
— Quarantine regime for imports
Requesting a panel for the first time, the EC mentioned that this dispute
was a long-standing one. The EC stated that as a result of the Australian
legislation, a number of agricultural products from EC Member States had
been denied access to the Australian market.
Australia replied that the EC challenge was not about commercial
considerations since, for a number of products referred to in the request,
Australia had no record of EC Members States having previously expressed
any interest in exporting to Australia. Australia added that its approach
to quarantine matters, while being conservative, was entirely WTO
Australia blocked the establishment of a panel.
DS269: European Communities — Customs classification of frozen boneless
Brazil said that the reclassification by the EC of the product “frozen
boneless chicken cuts” had resulted in tariffs on salted chicken meat in
excess of the EC's tariff commitments.
The EC argued that Brazil had misunderstood or misinterpreted the EC
legislation and that the EC legislation had simply ensured a uniform
classification of the specific products imported under the EC Common
The EC blocked Brazil's first request for a panel.
— Definitive anti-dumping measures on beef and rice
The United States said that they had several concerns about Mexico's
anti-dumping measures on beef and rice: for example, the manner in which
Mexico conducted its dumping and injury analysis, and the date it relied
on in making its determinations.
Mexico said that it had showed the legality of its measure during the
consultations with the US. Mexico complained that the US panel request
contained reference to measures that were not addressed during the
Mexico blocked the US's first panel request.
Selection process for the Appellate Body back to top
The Chairman of the DSB announced that two candidates had been nominated
by the United States to replace Mr. James Bacchus: Professor Merit E.
Janow and Mr. Robert Lighthizer. The DSB will take a decision on this
appointment at its meeting on 7 November 2003.
meeting back to top
The DSB will next meet on 7 November 2003.