Adoption of Appellate Body and Panel 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 main 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.
DS312: Korea — Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Certain paper from
Indonesia was pleased with the overall panel's finding and expressed trust
that Korea would promptly comply with rulings.
While Korea did not agree with all aspects of the panel's decision, it
admitted that a careful review of the evidence and the submissions of the
parties were done by the panel before reaching its conclusions. Korea
added that among dozens of issues identified by Indonesia under the WTO
Anti-dumping Agreement, the panel found in the Korean Trade Commission (KTC),
the Korean government agency whose determinations in the anti-dumping
investigation were subject of Indonesia's claims, only a few inconsistent
minor procedural matters. Consequently, Korea would undertake the steps
necessary to remove those questions about KTC.
The EC said that the dispute considered for the first time the issue of
whether the Anti-dumping Agreement (Article 6.10), when requiring to
determine an individual margin of dumping for each known exporter,
calculates a separate dumping margin for each separate legal entities. The
EC noted that the panel conclusion was of particular practical importance
for the effectiveness of the Agreement.
DS282: United States — Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods
(OCTG) from Mexico
The Mexican delegate said that although Mexico won this case, it did not
win the appeal. It added that the manner in which the Appellate Body
dismissed Mexico's claims, particularly those related to the Sunset Policy
Bulletin (SPB), should be a strong systemic concern to all WTO members.
The US was pleased that the Appellate Body upheld the panel's findings on
likelihood of injury and the margin to prevail. In addition it welcomed
that the Appellate Body reversed the panel's finding that the SPB was
inconsistent with WTO obligations.
Among other speakers, the EC welcomed the reiteration by the panel that
the SPB is a measure that may be challenged as such within the WTO system.
It noted also with satisfaction that this specific issue was not subject
to appeal. Argentina also stated that the panel report had one more time
concluded the WTO inconsistency of the Sunset review. Hong Kong China
highlighted one particular issue in the sunset review which is the
Request for panel establishment back to top
These are cases that have completed the consultation phase, the first
stage of a dispute. When consultations have failed, member governments are
entitled to ask for a panel to be set up to examine the dispute. According
to the rules, the respondent can reject the first request. At the second
request, a panel is automatically established.
DS332: Brazil — Measures affecting imports of retreaded tyres
The EC requested for the first time the establishment of a panel for
examining Brazilian discriminatory measures against EC imports of
retreated tyres. It added that the import ban was violating some of the
most fundamental rules of the GATT 1994.
Brazilian delegate replied that the EC brought against Brazil a very
special product since waste tyres were definitely the most problematic
waste to deal with. It added that tyres were also a source of significant
public health concerns. In light of the foregoing, Brazil rejected the
request made by the EC.
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
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.
DS176: US — Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998
The US reported that the US Administration was working with Congress to
implement the DSB's rulings.
The EC recalled that the third anniversary of the initial 31 December 2002
deadline granted to the US was approaching. In addition, it said that 5
months had already elapsed since the expiry of the extended implementation
period on 30 June 2005. Cuba added that there was absolutely no legal or
moral reason for the Section 211 to be in force three years after the DSB
made its decision. Cuba urged the EU to abolish this Section.
DS184: US — Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel
The US said that the US Administration continued to work with US Congress
to enact legislation to implement the DSB's rulings.
Japan said that it had been waiting for the passage of the bill introduced
in Congress on 19 May 2005 that would amend the relevant US anti-dumping.
It took note that the US Administration continued to work with Congress to
pass this legislation.
DS234: US — Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000
The US announced that a budget reconciliation legislation, including the
repeal of the CDSOA, was approved by the House Committee on Ways and Means
on 26 October 2005. Hereafter, the full House passed legislation on 18
November 2005. A Conference Committee would now consider the bill.
The EC welcomed this significant step in implementation but added that it
was not the end of it. It hoped that the Congress would now complete the
legislative process to repeal the Byrd Amendment.
Canada took note of the latest report showing important and encouraging
development. Canada affirmed that trade sanctions were not the preferred
means but the measures were judged necessary to protect Canadian
Among other speakers, Japan said that its countermeasures shall be taken
only temporarily until the implementation of the DSB's rulings is duly
secured. Also, Japan urged the US Senate to consider the legislation
DS160: US — Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act
The US said that US Administration continued to work closely with the US
Congress and continued to confer with the EC.
The EC expressed concerns about the lack of progress in the US
legislation. Nevertheless, the EC placed trust in the US for remedying
this unfortunate situation. Finally, the EC recalled that it had reserved
its rights to reactive at any point in time the arbitration on its
DS212: US — Countervailing measures concerning certain products from the
The DSB adopted recommendations and rulings of the compliance review panel
(Article 21.5 of the DSU) by the EC on 27 September 2005.
In its first statement since the adoption of the implementation panel
report, the US said that it continued to take steps to implement the DSB
The EC, disappointed, said that the US status report was extremely short
and provided no information on the US intention. As a consequence, the EC
submitted a number of questions for clarification. The US replied that
these questions would be referred for proper consideration to the US
back to top
DS269: EC — Customs Classification of Frozen Boneless Chicken Cuts
Brazil circulated on 22 November 2005 a request for arbitration of the
reasonable period of time for the EC implementation of the rulings. At
this DSB meeting, Brazil registered dissatisfaction. It said that the EC
stated its intention to implement the DSB recommendations in a reasonable
period of time. But the conditions presented by the EC left Brazil, as it
mentioned, with no other option than requesting an arbitration.
The EC expressed some perplexity, explaining that the EC was in perfect
line with the Dispute Settlement Understanding. The EC added that so far
it has not yet received reaction from other co-complainant (Thailand).
meeting back to top
A special meeting of the regular DSB will take place on 6 December 2005.
The next regular meeting of the DSB will be on 20 January 2006.