|
Surveillance of implementation back to top
DS136
& DS162: United States — Anti-dumping Act of 1916
The US said that the US Administration would continue to work with
Congress to achieve further progress in resolving this dispute.
The EC complained about the lack of progress and added that EC companies
were currently facing substantial litigation costs.
Japan wondered if the US would implement and reminded the US of its right
to suspend concessions.
Mexico expressed interest in the US' implementation.
DS176: United States — Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998
The US stated that the US Administration continued to work with US
Congress on appropriate statutory measures that would resolve the matter.
The EC reminded the US that the deadline for implementation was
approaching and expressed hope that the bill introduced in June 2003 in US
Congress would offer a solution to the dispute.
Cuba reiterated its preoccupation about the lack of implementation on the
part of the US.
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 the US
Congress to address the recommendations and rulings of the DSB that were
not addressed by the original deadline of 23 November 2002.
Japan urged the US Administration to do its utmost to ensure compliance
before the new revised deadline, 31 December 2003 or the end of the 108th
Congress session, whichever was earlier. Japan also reminded the US of its
right to suspend concessions.
DS207: Chile
— Price band system and safeguard measures relating to
certain agricultural products
Chile announced that on 16 December 2003 a new price band system for wheat
and wheat flour would come into force.
Argentina said that the only way to implement the recommendations of the
DSB in that case was to drop the price band system and to apply
straightforward tariffs. Argentina added that it was ready to try to find
a solution with Chile before the deadline.
DS212: United States
— Countervailing measures concerning certain products
from the European Communities
The US announced that with final revised determinations issued for each of
the twelve countervailing determinations – some of them revoking the
countervailing orders, some keeping them in place – the US had implemented
the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.
The EC responded that it was still evaluating the reasons why the US
Department of Commerce had not performed an analysis of the privatization
in four of the twelve cases.
Communication back to top
DS26 &
DS48: European Communities – Measures concerning meat and meat
products (hormones)
The EC announced the entry into force of a new directive concerning the
prohibition on the use in stockfarming of certain hormones. The EC said
that the new directive was based on a risk assessment performed by an
independent scientific committee. This committee, the EC said, identified
a risk for consumers for each of the hormones the use of which was banned
in the EC for growth promoting purposes. The EC stated that, accordingly,
they considered that with the entry into force of the directive, the EC
was in conformity with the DSB recommendations and rulings in the hormone
case. The EC added that it thus expected that the US and Canada would
terminate their suspension of concessions to the EC.
The US responded that the directive neither removed the EC's unjustified
ban on US beef, nor did it present an appropriate risk assessment as a
basis for the ban. The US said that it could not therefore understand how
the new directive could amount to the implementation of the DSB
recommendations.
Likewise, Canada said that it saw no new scientific evidence in the new
risk assessment and that it consequently saw no reason to remove the
existing sanctions.
The EC concluded that on the basis of the US and Canada's reaction, it
would reflect on necessary appropriate action.
Panels established back to top
DS287: Australia
— Quarantine regime for imports
The EC requested for the second time a panel on Australia's quarantine
regime for imports.
Australia expressed concern about the potential harm this challenge posed
to Members' ability to maintain quarantine systems adapted to their
particular circumstances. Additionally, Australia questioned the EC's
motivations in bringing this challenge, given that it did not appear to be
about commercial considerations.
The DSB established a panel. The following countries requested to be third
parties: Canada, the Philippines, US, China, Chile, Thailand and India.
DS295: Mexico
— Definitive anti-dumping measures on beef and rice
The US said that Mexico's antidumping measure on long-grain white rice
from the US was WTO inconsistent and for the second time asked for the
establishment of a panel.
Mexico said that it would defend its case vigorously.
A panel was established. EC, China and Turkey requested to be third
parties.
DS269: European Communities – Customs classification of frozen boneless
chicken cuts
For the second time Brazil requested a panel, explaining that since the EC
reclassification of frozen boneless chicken cuts, the EC duty on that
product had risen from 15.4% to 102.4 euro/100kg/net.
The EC said that it was determined to defend its interests.
The DSB established a panel. The following countries requested to be third
parties: US, China, Chile and Thailand.
Panel requested back to top
DS286: European Communities
— Customs classification of frozen boneless
chicken cuts
In its first request for a panel, Thailand complained about the
consequences of the EC reclassification of frozen boneless chicken.
Arguing that Thailand had misunderstood or misinterpreted its legislation,
the EC blocked the establishment of a panel.
Selection process for the Appellate Body back to top
The DSB decided to appoint Professor Merit E. Janow as Appellate Body
Member to replace Mr. James Bacchus. The DSB also reappointed Messr. Abi-Saab,
Ganesan and Taniguchi (Press release).
Next meeting back to top
The DSB will next meet on 21 November 2003.
|
