WTO: 2005 NEWS ITEMS
Dispute Settlement Body 20 January 2006
The DSB establishes panels for two cases: Brazil measures affecting imports of retreaded tyres; Chile price band system and safeguard measures relating to certain agricultural products
The DSB, on 20 January 2006, established a panel to examine Brazil measures against EC imports of retreaded tyres (DS332) and a compliance panel at the request of Argentina to review the implementation in the case of Chile price band system and safeguard measures relating to certain agricultural products (DS207).
> 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.
Request for panel establishment
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 second
time the establishment of a panel for examining Brazilian discriminatory
measures against EC imports of retreaded tyres. The EC argued that the
import ban was violating some of the most fundamental rules of the GATT
1994.
Brazil regretted that the EC decided to re-introduce its request for a
panel. Brazil believed that by insisting, the EC demonstrated that it was
counting on developing countries to get rid of large volumes of unwelcome
rubber wastes in a cheap and efficient manner.
The DSB agreed to establish the Panel. Argentina, Australia, Korea, Japan
and the US reserved their third-party rights.
back to top
Request for compliance panel
At the end of the period given to a government to comply with a ruling, the parties to the dispute sometimes disagree on whether that government has fully complied. In such situation, the matter can be referred to the original panel who will decide whether the ruling has been applied properly.
DS207: Chile — Price Band System and Safeguard Measures Relating to
Certain Agricultural Products
Argentina disapproved the measures adopted by Chile in order to comply
with the DSB rulings. As a result, Argentina asked for the establishment
of a compliance panel. Chile contested Argentina's arguments but according
to a bilateral understanding between both parties regarding procedures
under DSU Articles 21 & 22, it accepted the establishment of that
compliance panel (WT/DS207/16).
The DSB agreed to establish the compliance panel. Australia, US, Colombia
and the EC reserved their third-party rights.
back to top
Implementation
EC — Regime for the Importation,
Sale and Distribution of Bananas
DS27 and related subsequent WTO
proceedings
Honduras and Nicaragua had announced their wish to make statements under
this item.
Honduras objected to the revised EC tariff level on banana imports in
force since the beginning of 2006. It said that the new tariff of 176
euros/mt, which was more than the double of the one applied in the past,
discriminated against non ACP imports, more specifically against Latin
American countries. Whereas ACP countries have been granted a preferential
tariff rate-quota, Honduras indicated that its revenue per capita is only
704 dollars, which is inferior to the GDP of the 32 ACP countries. As a
consequence, it called upon the DSB to urgently keep under surveillance
the EC regime for the banana imports in order to ensure effective
resolution of this dispute.
Nicaragua added that there was no doubt that the new EC's regime has been
designed to protect EC banana producers and their 300 millions dollars of
subsidises received annually. For Nicaragua, the EC persistence to refuse
the application of DSB recommendations was extremely worrying. Therefore,
Nicaragua requested the DSB to ensure that the EC would comply promptly
and fully with its WTO obligations.
Panama and the US questioned also whether this new EC's tariff was
maintaining the same market access advantage for all banana suppliers. In
addition, they expressed some concerns about the special tariff-quota that
the EC allocated to some suppliers (ACP) and not others.
The EC noted its disagreement with the matter to be categorized as an
“implementation issue” under the DSB surveillance. It said that the EC
would continue to hold consultations with all interested parties with the
assistance of Norwegian Minister Store, who was assigned as a facilitator
on this issue at the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference.
back to top
Surveillance of implementation
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.
back to top
Implementation status reports
- The European Communities presented the following status report:
DS174 &
DS290: EC — Protection of
Trademarks and Geographical Indications for Agricultural Products and
Foodstuffs
The EC presented its first status report, in which it reaffirmed its
intention to implement the rulings before 3 April 2006. In addition, it
announced that the Commission proposed to the Council of the European
Union a new regulation on geographical indications (GI).
Although the US and Australia welcomed the report, they flagged similar
concerns related to the new legislation. Firstly, one key provision of the
existing GI regulation to justify the panel analysis of Article 17 of the
Trips Agreement was omitted in the new legislation. Secondly, a trademark
owner not resident or established in an EC Member State does not seem to
have the right to object to the recognition of a GI.
- The United States presented the following status reports:
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 said that once again, the US made a report on “non progress”. Cuba
added that, to date, the US administration had neither presented nor
promoted any bill to modify the Section 211. Brazil and China encouraged
the US to give full effect to the objective of prompt compliance.
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 strongly hoped for final resolution by the US's compliance
DS217 &
DS234: US — Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000
The US announced that the US Senate approved on 21 December 2005 the
Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, including a provision to repeal the the
CDSOA — the so-called “Byrd Amendment”. However, as the Senate modified
one provision, although not related to the CDSOA repeal, the House would
need to vote again the entire legislation.
Among speakers, the EC, Canada, Japan and Brazil welcomed the recent steps
taken by the US Administration but registered some concerns regarding a
transitional clause that would allow disbursements to be made until
October 2007. With this concern in mind, they encouraged the US to
complete the necessary legislative process to repeal the Byrd Amendment.
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 noted that five and a half years after the adoption of the Panel
report, the US obstinately maintained its legislation that violated
intellectual property rights. Nevertheless, the EC hoped that the US
Administration would invest more resources this year than in year 2005 to
find solution with the US Congress. Finally, the EC recalled that it had
reserved its rights to reactive at any point in time the arbitration on
its retaliation request.
back to top
Appointment / Re-appointment of Appellate Body members
The DSB Chairman, Eirik Glenne, informed of its intention to initiate at the next meeting the process for selecting a new Appellate Body member in replacement of Mr. John Lockhart (Press/432).
back to top
Next meeting
The next regular meeting of the DSB will be on 17 February 2006.