|
> Disputes in the WTO
> Find disputes cases
> Find disputes documents
> Disputes chronologically
> Disputes by subject
> Disputes by country
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.
|
DS379:
US — Definitive anti-dumping and countervailing duties on certain products
from China
China's request for a panel (WT/DS379/2)
China's request for a panel in this case was
first considered by the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) at its meeting on 22
December 2008. The US was unable to agree to the establishment of a panel
at that meeting.
At today's meeting, both China and the US
referred to their statements at the DSB meeting on 22 December 2008. A
panel was established, and the following delegations reserved their
third-party rights: Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Canada, the EC, Kuwait,
Saudi Arabia and Turkey.
Surveillance of implementation of recommendations adopted by the DSB back to top
According to Article 21.6 of the
Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU), the DSB has to keep under
surveillance the implementation of adopted rulings. At each regular
meeting of the DSB, therefore, the member concerned provides a written and
oral status report on its progress in the implementation of rulings.
Since the last regular meeting of the DSB on 22 December 2008, Ecuador's
complaint against the EC banana regime was the only new dispute under
surveillance. Below is a summary of the discussion.
EC — Regime for the Importation,
Sale and Distribution of Bananas: Second Recourse to Article 21.5 by
Ecuador
The EC said that it intended to
implement the DSB’s recommendations and rulings by modifying its bound
duty. It was the EC’s expectation that the rebinding could be made in the
context of a comprehensive agreement with Most-Favoured Nation (MFN)
suppliers. The EC added that it had been seeking such an agreement since
2004 when it initiated General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)
Article XXVIII negotiations and that it was committed to finding a
permanent solution to this long standing dispute. The EC further stated
that the draft "Geneva Banana Agreement" was subject to the adoption of
modalities last July and that the EC would be prepared to discuss the
possibility of that agreement if certain adjustments were made to take
account of the current situation. It was the hope of the EC that the MFN
suppliers would constructively engage in any future discussions.
Ecuador said that it was not apparent from the EC’s statement when it
would implement the DSB’s recommendations and rulings. The EC’s statements
about the Geneva Banana Agreement were regrettable considering that it was
negotiated between it and the MFN suppliers. The EC had not shown any
inclination to sign that agreement which would definitively resolve this
long-standing dispute and make it unnecessary for Ecuador to exercise its
retaliatory rights under the DSU. A unilateral decision by the EC in this
case would have serious ramifications.
The US said that it was regrettable that the EC had decided to submit a
status report for this case only and ignored the proceedings involving the
US. The US reiterated that the Appellate Body’s ruling that the “DSB’s
recommendations and rulings from the original proceedings remain in effect
until the EC brings itself into substantive compliance”. The US said that
the EC’s status report filed in the Ecuador case was not exhaustive, as it
failed to show how its banana regime as of 1 January 2008 was in
compliance with its obligations under GATT Articles 1 and XIII. With
respect to the finding of inconsistency with Article II made in the
Ecuador proceeding, the EC had only noted its willingness “to explore the
possibility of agreeing on the new bound tariff in the context of a
broader agreement on bananas”.
It was the expectation of the US that after all these years, the EC would
have taken concrete action in meeting its implementation obligations.
Apart from provisions such as Article XXIV and XXVIII which obliged the EC
to rebind its tariffs, the EC was also required to rebind its tariffs as a
result of the DSB’s recommendations and rulings in this case. The Geneva
Banana Agreement would have resolved this long-standing dispute and it was
regrettable that the EC decided to withdraw from this agreement. The US
concluded by saying that it was the expectation of the US that the EC
would provide comprehensive status reports on both disputes as to how it
intended to comply with the DSB’s recommendations and rulings.
Several WTO members, including Colombia, Costa Rica, Honduras, Nicaragua,
Panama and Paraguay, urged the EC to bring its measures into conformity
with the DSB's recommendations and rulings. The hope was expressed that
the EC would sign the stand-alone Geneva Banana Agreement which would
resolve definitively this long-running dispute.
Cameroon said that it had taken note of the plans of the EC to rebind its
tariffs in the context of a broader agreement on bananas and urged the EC
to take into account the interest of all stakeholders.
The EC said that it had taken note of comments of WTO members and would
transmit them to Brussels. However, the EC responded to one point
concerning the findings of violations of GATT Articles I and XIII. The EC
said that the Appellate Body (AB) confirmed that no recommendation (as
opposed to findings) was warranted with respect to the measure at issue in
this dispute, since it was no longer in existence (the EC referred to para
479 of the AB report). The EC said that the AB referred generally in that
context to the principle that in DSU Article 21.5 procedures, original DSB
recommendations and rulings remain in effect until the EC brings itself
into substantive compliance.
The EC maintained, however, that there was no longer a compliance issue
since the measure at fault had ceased to exist in 2007. That was the
reason why the EC did not submit a status report in the US case because
the US had only made claims under Articles I and XIII and not under
Article II of the GATT. The EC also said that the current tariff treatment
of bananas of African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) origin was a completely
different measure, based on the negotiation of free trade agreements (FTAs)
with the ACP countries concerned. The EC pointed out that tariff
preferences could equally result from FTA negotiations with Latin American
suppliers.
Next meeting back to top
The next regular meeting of the DSB
is due to take place on 11 February 2009.
|
> Problems viewing this page?
Please contact webmaster@wto.org giving details of the operating system and web browser you are using.
|
