|
Adoption of reports
back to top
When a panel report comes out, it is either adopted by the Dispute
Settlement Body or appealed by one or more parties to the dispute. When the
Appellate Body report comes out, it is automatically adopted by the DSB —
unless there is consensus to reject it — and becomes binding.
Adoption of Appellate Body and panel reports
DS265, DS266
& DS283: European Communities
— Export subsidies on sugar
Australia welcomed the findings of
the Appellate Body and the Panel. Australia said that it looked forward to
the EC's full and prompt implementation and stood ready to discuss with the
EC the period of time to do so. Among other comments on the Appellate Body
and Panel reports, Australia mentioned that following the conclusions of
these reports, the EC would have to reduce annual subsidized sugar exports
from its current level of over 5 million tonnes to 1.2735 million tonnes.
Brazil, too, welcomed the adoption of the reports. Brazil explained that the
reduction of the EC's subsidized sugar exports would result in enlarging the
sugar international market by as much as five million tonnes per year, to
the benefit of the competitive producers and exporters, most of them
developing countries. Brazil added that nothing in the reports compelled the
EC to change its preferential access for African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP)
sugar.
Likewise, Thailand welcomed the rulings confirming the inconsistency of EC
export subsidies and sought to reassure ACP countries about a potential
negative impact of the rulings on the current EC preferential regime for ACP
sugar.
The EC said that it intended to comply but that the reports raised a number
of systemic concerns. Among others, the EC mentioned the legal weight of a
footnote in its agriculture schedule of commitments. The EC also talked
about the relevance of the “Modalities paper” which is the basis for the
scheduling of agricultural commitments.
Mauritius spoke on behalf of ACP WTO member States and expressed worries
concerning the socio-economic impact of the findings on the weak and
vulnerable ACP States. Mauritius explained that some ACP countries, for
example St Kitts & Nevis, were already being forced out of their sugar
production.
Canada urged the EC to minimize the potential adverse effect the
implementation of the reports could have on ACP countries and on India.
St Kitts & Nevis said that it was currently planning its way out of sugar
and asked that its attempt at adjustment be taken into account.
India noted with satisfaction the panel's suggestion that the EC endeavour
to bring its production of sugar into line with domestic consumption whilst
fully respecting its international commitments concerning imports from
developing countries.
The Dispute Settlement Body adopted the Appellate Body and panel reports as
amended by the Appellate Body.
DS302: Dominican Republic
— Measures affecting the importation and internal sale of cigarettes
Honduras said that it was pleased to
have prevailed in the vast majority of its claims. Honduras called upon the
Dominican Republic to implement the rulings of the DSB in a prompt manner.
The Dominican Republic noted that the Panel and the Appellate Body found
that three of the six measures identified by Honduras were in conformity
with WTO rules.
The EC made some comments about the application of GATT Article III on
national treatment.
The Dispute Settlement Body adopted the Appellate Body and panel reports as
amended by the Appellate Body.
Implementation
back to top
After a ruling has been adopted, the
DSB keeps under surveillance the implementation of the ruling until the
issue is resolved.
Within 30 days after the date of adoption, the Member concerned must inform
the DSB of its intentions in respect of implementation of the ruling.
Six months after the implementation time period has been fixed, the Member
must start presenting at each DSB a status report of its implementation —
until full implementation.
Implementation intentions
DS174
& DS290:
EC — Protection of trademarks and geographical indications for agricultural
products and foodstuffs
The EC said that it intended to fully
implement. The EC explained that it would modify certain provisions of its
geographical indications' regime relating to agricultural products and
foodstuffs. The EC said that it would need a reasonable period of time to do
so and declared itself ready and willing to discuss this with Australia and
the US.
Australia and the US confirmed that they too were willing to discuss with
the EC a period of time to implement.
DS285: US — Measures affecting the cross-border supply of gambling and betting services
The US said that it intended to
implement and had begun to evaluate options to do so. The US added that it
would need a reasonable period of time and stood ready to discuss this
matter with the Government of Antigua and Barbuda.
Antigua & Barbuda — represented by its Finance and Economy Minister, Dr.
Errol Cort — asked the US for more precision on its implementation plans.
Antigua commented that implementation would require not only a clarification
of the US' internet gambling restrictions but also market access for Antigua
for the provision of gambling and betting services.
Implementation status reports
DS184: US — Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan
The US said that legislation that
would implement the DSB's rulings was being introduced in the US House of
Representatives.
Japan welcomed this news, saying that it had been waiting over three years
for it. Japan said that the introduction of a bill was an important step
toward the full-fledged implementation of the DSB rulings. Japan recalled
that the US had to implement by 31 July 2005.
DS217 & DS234: US — Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (Byrd Amendment)
In its status report, the US reminded
the DSB that on 3 March 2005 legislation that would repeal the Byrd
Amendment was introduced in the US House of Representatives.
The EC recalled that since 1 May 2005, it was applying a 15% additional duty
on imports of certain products originating in the US.
Canada said that it too implemented retaliatory measures on 1 May 2005.
Korea strongly urged the US to repeal the CDSOA and stated that it would
otherwise be obliged to seriously consider following the lead of the EC and
Canada.
India noted it had retaliatory rights and that although its preferred option
was compliance, it was looking at all possibilities.
Japan said that it intended to take appropriate actions if the current
situation prevailed, including the exercise of its retaliatory rights.
Brazil and Chile made similar statements.
DS276: Canada— Measures relating to exports of wheat and treatment of imported grain
In its first status report, Canada
said that it had put forward legislation on 11 March 2005 to implement the
rulings of the DSB. Canada added that this legislation had now been passed
by the House of Commons and was currently under consideration by the Senate,
where it had been given a first reading on 12 May 2005. Canada said that it
intended to be in full compliance by the agreed deadline of 1 August 2005.
The US requested more information on the way this new legislation would
bring Canada in conformity with its WTO obligations.
Other implementation cases
There are no new developments to report since the last DSB meeting on the following items:
DS176: US — Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998
DS160: United
States — Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act.
DS204: Mexico— Measures affecting telecommunications services.
DS246: European Communities — Conditions for the granting of tariff preferences to developing countries
Other business
back to top
DS264: US — Final dumping determination on softwood lumber from Canada
The US reported that it had implemented the DSB rulings through a new final determination on 15 April 2005and its implementation on 27 April 2005.
Next
meeting back to top
The next regular DSB meeting will be on 20 June 2005.
A special meeting of the DSB will take place on 1 June 2005. It will consider Canada's requests for a compliance review
panel (Article 21.5) and for an authorization to apply sanctions (Article 22.2) in the case
“US — Final dumping determination on softwood lumber from Canada” (DS264).
|
