|
> 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.
|
Adoption of agenda back to top
At the start of the meeting before
the agenda was adopted, Japan drew attention to item 4 on the agenda dealing
with DS322 “US measures relating to zeroing and sunset reviews”.
Japan stated that in the communication circulated prior to the meeting
(WT/DS322/25) the United States objected to the level of retaliation
proposed by Japan, and hence the DSB was not in a position to grant
authorization as requested by Japan in
WT/DS322/23 and
WT/DS322/24 because
the matter had been referred to arbitration under DSU Article 22.6.
Japan also noted that the adoption of the agenda without item 4 did not
constitute a withdrawal of its request for DSB authorization to retaliate.
The US spoke briefly to concur with Japan's statement.
The DSB adopted the agenda without item 4.
Establishment of panel back to top
DS367: Australia — Measures affecting the importation of apples from
New Zealand
The DSB established a panel following New Zealand's second time request
(WT/DS367/5) to review measures affecting market access of its apples into
Australia. At the previous meeting on 17 December 2007, New Zealand had
claimed that these measures were not scientifically justified and were
inconsistent with the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement.
At the present meeting, New Zealand said that bilateral discussions had not
resulted in a mutually agreed solution which was the reason why it requested
a panel for the second time.
Australia said it was disappointed at New Zealand's request and said the
measures it took were consistent with WTO rules. Australia added that it
would bring procedural deficiencies to the attention of the panel.
Japan, US, Chinese Taipei, Chile and
the EC reserved their third party rights.
Implementation back to top
DS322: US — Measures relating to zeroing and sunset review
The US presented a status report on progress in the implementation of the
DSB ruling.
The US said it had complied with the DSB recommendations and rulings in this
dispute.
Japan welcomed the statement by the US that it had ceased using the zeroing
methodology and its commitment to implement the DSB recommendations. Despite
these positive steps, Japan said the US only addressed a part of the DSB
ruling.
Japan said that, in view of the lack of action by the US, it had requested
authorisation from the DSB to suspend tariff concessions to the US
(WT/DS322/23 and
WT/DS322/24). Japan urged the US to fully bring its
measures into conformity with the DSB recommendations.
The EC said that it was also waiting for the US to comply with the DSB
ruling in a case it had initiated against the zeroing methodology
(WT/DS294). The EC said it had also instigated a new dispute as a result of
the continued application of zeroing by the US (WT/DS350). The EC said that
zeroing had been subject to numerous litigations since the first case in
1998. The EC said that 12 disputes had been brought against the US on the
use of zeroing. The EC added that there was no doubt left that zeroing run
foul of fundamental obligations of the Antidumping Agreement. The EC hoped
that the US would put an end to all remaining illegal zeroing practices.
The US said that it was apparent that there was a disagreement between Japan
and the US over the measures adopted to implement the DSB recommendations.
The US said that as a leading proponent of sequencing, Japan should have had
recourse to Article 21.5 before resorting to Article 22.2 of the DSU to
suspend tariff concessions to the US.
The EC said that it was in favour of sequencing mechanisms in a case of
genuine disagreement on implementation, and that recourse should first be
made to Article 21.5 and then to Article 22.6.
Japan said the US had to do more to bring its measures into full conformity
with the DSB rulings. Japan added that the decision to request authorization
to retaliate was because of the lack of progress in the implementation of
the DSB recommendations. Japan concluded it was willing to conclude a
sequencing agreement with the US.
DS291 /
DS292 /
DS293: European Communities — Measures affecting the approval and
marketing of biotech products
The EC presented a status report (WT/DS291/37
—
WT/DS292/31
—
WT/DS293/31)
on progress made in the implementation of the DSB ruling.
In this dispute, the reasonable period of time for implementation had
expired on 21 November 2007 and was extended until 11 January 2008.
The EC said that it had held regular technical discussions with the three
complainants. The EC declared that Argentina and Canada agreed to a second
extension of the reasonable period of time, respectively up to 5 months
(until 11 June 2008) and 1 month (until 11 February 2008).
The EC said that while the US tabled a retaliation request, it had concluded
a sequencing agreement (WT/DS291/38) that would suspend the request until
compliance procedures (Article 21.5 of DSU) are concluded.
The EC stated that 17 applications had been approved since the panel was
established and, in 2007, seven new products were authorised.
The EC added that four other products would possibly be approved early 2008.
Argentina said that technical meetings with the EC were very positive.
Argentina confirmed that it had agreed to further extend the reasonable
period of time to 5 months (until 11 June 2008) since new major advances may
be achieved.
Canada said it had held discussions with the EC on a technical level. Canada
confirmed that it agreed to further extend the reasonable period of time to
1 month (until 11 February 2008) in order to pursue the technical dialogue.
Canada expected that discussions would yield progress.
The US said it was concerned that some EC Member States would still apply
bans found in breach of the EC's WTO obligations while additional Members
had adopted new ones.
The US said it had been very patient throughout this dispute and preserved
its rights by filing a request for authorisation to suspend concessions.
The US said it had entered with the EC into a sequencing agreement
(WT/DS291/38) under which the request would be referred to arbitration. The
US added that the arbitration proceedings would be suspended for a limited
period. The US said this process was intended to encourage further
discussion and cooperation with the EC.
The US declared that there was a limit to how long it could wait before
further exercising its rights under the DSU. The US concluded that it looked
forward to continuing its dialogue with the EC.
DS217: US — Continued dumping and subsidy Offset Act of 2000
At the request of the EC and Japan, the DSB discussed the ‘Byrd Amendment’
case and the implementation of the ruling by the US.
The EC and Japan said that the US had just completed a UDS262 million
distribution to its industry.
The EC said this would bring to USD2
billion the total amount that had been distributed so far and called on the
US to abide by its obligations under the DSU.
Japan added that the US had repealed the Byrd Amendment only in form but was
still operational.
The US said it had repealed the Byrd Amendment and had taken all actions
necessary to implement the ruling.
India, China, Canada, Thailand and Brazil supported the EC's and Japan's
statements.
Next
meeting back to top
The next meeting of the DSB will take
place on 19 February 2008.
|
> Problems viewing this page?
Please contact webmaster@wto.org giving details of the operating system and web browser you are using.
|
