WTO: 2006 NEWS ITEMS

Dispute Settlement Body 19 June 2006

DSB establishes a panel in reference to Japan-Korea memory microchips dispute

The Dispute Settlement Body, on 19 June 2006, established a panel to consider Japan's countervailing duties on imports of certain Dynamic Random Access Memories (DRAMs) from Korea (DS336).

> Disputes in the WTO
> Find disputes cases
> Find disputes documents

> Disputes chronologically
> Disputes by subject
> Disputes by country

  

SEE ALSO:
> Press releases
> News archives
> Pascal Lamy’s speeches

  

NOTE:
This summary has been prepared by the WTO Secretariat’s Information and Media Relations Division to help public understanding about developments in WTO disputes. It is not a legal interpretation of the issues, and it is not intended as a complete account of the issues. These can be found in the reports themselves and in the minutes of the Dispute Settlement Body’s meetings.

Japan — Countervailing Duties on Dynamic Random Access Memories from Korea WT/DS336/5 back to top

Korea requested for the second time the DSB to establish a panel to consider the countervailing measures taken by Japan against Dynamic Random Access Memories (DRAMS) produced by Hynix in Korea. Korea considered the measures imposed by Japan to be inconsistent with Japan’s obligations under the relevant provisions of the GATT 1994, and the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (“SCM Agreement”). Korea had requested for the first time the establishment of the panel at the DSB meeting on 30 May 2006.

Japan said that it regretted that Korea had chosen to pursue this matter further by making its second request for the establishment of a panel. It added that it was certain that the panel would find that the countervailing measures against the subsidises on Korean DRAMS would comply with WTO Agreements.

The DSB agreed to establish the panel.

Members who reserved their third-party rights were the US, the EC and China.
  

Full summary of the meeting

I. Surveillance of implementation of recommendations adopted by the DSB  back to top

A.  United States — Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998: Status report by the United States (WT/DS176/11/ADD.43)

The US reported that US Administration was working with Congress to implement the DSB's rulings.
 

B.  United States — Anti-dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Products from Japan:
Status report by the United States
(WT/DS184/15/ADD.43)

The US reported that the US Administration would continue to work with Congress to enact legislation to implement the DSB’s recommendations.
 

C.  United States — Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act:
Status report by the United States
(WT/DS160/24/ADD.18

The US said that the US Administration continued to work closely with the US Congress and continued to confer with the EC.
  

D.  European Communities — Export Subsidies on Sugar:
Status report by the European Communities
(WT/DS265/35/ADD.1WT/DS266/35/ADD.1WT/DS283/16/ADD.1)

The EC informed the DSB of the measures taken to comply with DSB rulings since the last status report at the DSB meeting on 17 May 2006.  The EC announced that the Commission Regulation No 769/2006 of 19 May 2006 entered into force which allowed for the return of export licences for C sugar issued but not used by 22 May 2006 and suspended the further issuance of export licences for C sugar from 23 May 2006. The EC concluded that it  was in a position to maintain its subsidized exports of sugar within its commitments as from the marketing year 2006/2007. As a consequence, the EC believed that it fully complied with DSB rulings within the reasonable period of time (22 May 2006).

In the light of the status report, the three co-complainants, Brazil, Thailand, Australia were not in position to agree on EC's compliance with DSB recommendation. They claimed that the EC's export quantity and budget expenditures of subsidized sugar were exceeding the limit fixed by the EC's schedules for the 2005/2006 marketing year. For them, compliance  meant that the EC would have stopped exporting illegally subsidized sugar as of 23 May 2006. (see also Item VI below)
  

E.  European Communities — Customs Classification of Frozen Boneless Chicken Cuts:
Status report by the European Communities
(WT/DS269/15WT/DS286/17)

The EC said that it was pleased to report that the draft legislation under the form of a Commission Regulation would fully implement the relevant DSB findings. It added that the Commission was working hard to ensure that this legislation would be enacted and enter into force at the latest by the expiry of the reasonable period of time on 27 June 2006.

Brazil informed that it was following closely the EC's implementation action and expected that by 27 June, the EC would fully comply with its obligations under the  DSB. 

Thailand expressed concerns regarding the information contained in EC's status report. It said that EC statement might be transparent but it was not very clear. Thailand would thus continue to actively monitor the EC's implementation process and looked forward to a more detailed status report by the EC. Thailand noted the possibility that the EC could adopt the legislation on 27 June, but that it would not enter into force until 20 or 30 days later.

II. Implementation by the European Communities of the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in relation to “European Communities — Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas” and related subsequent WTO proceedings  back to top

A.  Statements by Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama

No development under this item: As at previous meetings, Honduras, Panama and Nicaragua, continued to maintain that the EC had failed to bring its measures into conformity with its obligations under the DSB’s recommendations in the Bananas dispute. They said that the new banana tariff continued to discriminate against MFN suppliers, and that the consolidated tariff rate  was not €176 per tonnes, as officially announced, but €680, which was 9 times the previous rate.

The complaining members requested that this item be considered by DSB as an implementation issue. The EC objected to this request.

  

III. United States — Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000: Implementation of the recommendations adopted by the DSB  back to top

A.  Statements by Canada, the European Communities and Japan

Canada, the EC, Japan and other countries continued to argue that  they could not agree with the US that it had fully implemented the WTO rulings. They maintained that the transition clause in the proposed legislation would postpone the repeal of the CDSOA until October 2007 and allow duties collected before then to be disbursed subsequently. The EC explained that the US Customs and Border Protection administration published on 1 June 2006 a notice of intent to distribute offset payments for fiscal year 2006 under CDSOA. These first steps were in process and would result in a new distribution starting on 1 October 2006 and would add to the nullification and impairment already caused not only to co-complainants in the dispute but also to the whole WTO membership, added the EC. Brazil indicated that in the view of the recent information by the US customs authorities, the preliminary amounts up to 30 April 2006 to be distributed under the CDSOA next October 2006 would exceed US$ 170 million. As a result, the co-complainants urged the US to provide status reports until it fully complied with the DSB's recommendations. 

The US stated that it failed to understand why it should provide this report since the US congress approved on 1 February 2006 the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, including a provision to repeal the the CDSOA — the so-called “Byrd Amendment” and on 8 February 2006, President Bush signed the Act into law. The US stated that it had fully implemented the rulings by repealing the CDSOA.

  

IV. United States — Countervailing Measures Concerning Certain Products from the European Communities  back to top

A.  Statement by the European Communities

The EC continued to request the US to provide a status report that would provide further clarifications regarding the issuance of preliminary findings from the Department of Commerce. The US reported that the US  Department of Commerce issued on 26 May 2006 its final revised determinations in the sunset reviews involving certain steel products from Spain and the United Kingdom. According to the US, the Commerce determined in both cases that revocation of the countervailing duty order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy. As a result, the US concluded the it had implemented the DSB rulings.

  

V. United States — Anti-Dumping Measure on Shrimp from Ecuador  back to top

A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by Ecuador (WT/DS335/6

Ecuador requested for the first time the establishment of a panel concerning the US anti-dumping measures involving certain frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador. Ecuador argued that the US practice of zeroing in its investigation was not consistent with the Anti-dumping Agreement. Ecuador added that it was quite confident that its position was correct since the Appellate Body had already found that “zeroing” method by the US was inconsistent on two prior occasions.

The US responded by stating that, in the light of an ongoing effort to resolve this matter with Ecuador, the panel request was premature and therefore, the US was not in position to agree to its establishment.

VI. European Communities — Export Subsidies on Sugar    back to top

Joint request by Australia and the European Communities (WT/DS265/36);
Joint request by Brazil and the European Communities (WT/DS266/36);
Joint request by Thailand and the European Communities
(WT/DS283/17)

Given the disagreement between the co-complainants and the EC over the latter's compliance, the parties had reached bilateral understandings on how to proceed with the resolution of the three disputes. These understandings had been notified to the DSB on 8 June 2006.

The DSB agreed to the procedures in the understandings.

  

VII. Proposed nomination for the indicative list of governmental and non-governmental panelists (WT/DSB/W/322)  back to top

The DSB approved the additional name proposed for inclusion on the indicative list of governmental and non-governmental panelists, in accordance with Article 8.4 of the DSU.

  

Next meeting  back to top

The next DSB meetings will be on  22 June and 19 July 2006.