Panel establishment

DS381: United States — Measures concerning the importation, marketing and sale of tuna and tuna products

The panel was established at Mexico's second-time request (WT/DS381/4), which challenged US measures prohibiting the labelling of Mexican tuna products as dolphin safe.

Mexico said it would keep options open to find a mutually acceptable solution with the US.

The US believed that its dolphin-safe labelling measures were consistent with WTO principles and added that this case should have been processed under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) dispute settlement procedure (Article 2005(4) of NAFTA). On this point, Mexico responded that the NAFTA provision did not apply to the current dispute as it dealt with important multilateral issues.

New Zealand stated that environmental labelling is a growing phenomenon in international trade and said it had both a systemic and commercial interest in this dispute.

New Zealand, Ecuador, Guatemala, Korea, Turkey, Chinese Taipei, Japan, China, the EC, Argentina and Australia reserved their third-party rights.

back to top

Implementation of DSB rulings 

DS343: United States — Measures relating to shrimp from Thailand
DS345: United States — Customs bond directive for merchandise subject to anti-dumping/countervailing duties

These items were on the agenda at the request of the of the US which made a statement on its implementation of the DSB recommendations.

In 2004, the US required exporters subjected to anti-dumping duties to post a bond covering the full amount of the duty whereas previously the bond would only cover 10 per cent of the duty. Two separate cases were brought by Thailand and India in 2006 on this issue against the US which had until 1 April 2009 to comply with the DSB recommendations adopted on 1 August 2008 (WT/DS335/R, WT/DS343/AB/R and WT/DS345/R/R — WT/DS345/AB/R).

The US reported that it complied with the DSB recommendations in both disputes and said that shrimp importers could now use ordinary bonds. In the case with Thailand, the US added that it had recalculated the dumping margin without using the zeroing method.

India and Thailand welcomed the steps taken by the US but were still considering whether they would be sufficient to bring the US into compliance. Both countries looked forward to seeing how the US actions would be implemented in practice. India and Thailand therefore asked for the matter to be placed under the DSB's surveillance until it was fully resolved.

DS362: China — Measures affecting the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights

The panel report (WT/DS362/R) was adopted on 20 March 2009 and China had to inform the DSB of its intentions to implement the ruling within 30 days of adoption.

China confirmed it would comply with the panel recommendations adopted by the DSB and added it would need a reasonable period of time to implement the ruling.

The US hoped China would promptly bring its measures into compliance with its obligations, given the pressing problems of intellectual property rights (IPR) infringement. The US added that it was ready to discuss with China on a reasonable period of time for implementation.

The EC said it attached great importance to the protection of IPR and hoped China would expeditiously implement the recommendations of the DSB.

DS217: United States — Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000

Japan and the EC requested this item to be placed on the agenda to keep this dispute under examination at the DSB.

In accordance with the DSB authorisation to suspend concessions to the US (WT/DS217/53), the EC said that it brought the level of retaliatory measures down to US$ 16.31 million. The EC said that this decision reflected the proportionate decrease of the amount disbursed to US companies from anti-dumping and countervailing duties collected on EC products.

back to top

Other business — Statement of the DSB Chair on the appointment of new Appellate Body members 

The DSB Chair, Ambassador Gero from Canada, made a statement on the current Appellate Body members appointment process.

He informed members that the Selection Committee (Director-General, and the Chairs of the General Council, the DSB, the Goods Council, the Services Council and the Trade-related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Council) would interview the six candidates at the end of April. The candidates come from Argentina, Costa Rica, Brazil, the EC and Mexico.

The DSB Chair added that members had until 20 May 2009 to send their comments to the Selection Committee, which would eventually make a final recommendation to the DSB at the end of May, so that a decision could be taken by the DSB in June 2009.

The DSB Chair said that he continued his consultations on the reappointment of David Unterhalter, currently member of the Appellate Body and whose term would end on 11 December 2009.

  

back to top

Next meeting 

The next meeting of the DSB will be held on 20 May 2009 and the agenda will be available on 8 May 2009.