United States — Measures affecting the production and sale of clove
In introducing its first-time request for a
Indonesia said that the United States’ Section 907 (a)(1) of the Family
Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009 prohibited the
production or sale of clove cigarettes and that, as a result, clove
cigarettes produced in Indonesia may no longer be imported into the US.
Indonesia pointed out that well over 6 million
Indonesians depended directly or indirectly on clove cigarette production.
Prior to the Act of 2009, Indonesia produced 99 percent of clove
cigarettes sold in the US. Today, Indonesia said, those sales were down to
zero. Indonesia emphasised that it was not questioning the serious health
risks associated with the use of tobacco products. But it could not
understand the rationale for the ban on clove cigarettes while menthol
cigarettes were excluded from the ban. According to Indonesia, almost all
of the menthol cigarettes sold in the US were produced domestically.
Indonesia stated that on several occasions it
had asked the US to share any studies that demonstrated why clove
cigarettes should be banned and not menthol. To date, there had been no
response from the US. Indonesia believed that the Act and its
implementation by the US was inconsistent with certain WTO provisions
including, but not limited to, GATT 1994 and the Agreement on Technical
Barriers to Trade. Consultations with the US had failed to resolve the
matter; hence Indonesia’s request for a panel.
The US said that the Act did not target
Indonesian clove cigarettes nor did it single out any country. The US was
confident that the Act was fully consistent with its WTO obligations. The
US also mentioned that the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Tobacco
Products Scientific Advisory Committee was in the process of preparing a
report whose findings would be presented to the FDA by 18 March 2011. The
US said that, under the circumstances, Indonesia’s request was premature
and that the US was not in a position to agree to a panel at this time.
Surveillance of implementation
of DSB rulings back to top
The following status reports were
United States — Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998
The US reported that a number of
legislative proposals that would implement the DSB’s recommendations and
rulings had been introduced in Congress and that the Committee on the
Judiciary of the House of Representatives had held a hearing on certain of
those proposals on 3 March 2010. The EU noted that the US was presenting its
92nd report and hoped that it
would soon take steps to finally resolve the matter. Cuba, Chile, China,
Ecuador, India, Viet Nam, Venezuela, Brazil and Mexico reiterated their
concern over the non-compliance, called on the US to comply and sought more
information from the US on the steps it had taken.
United States — Anti-dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Products
The US said that as of 23 November
2002, its authorities had addressed the DSB’s recommendations and rulings
with respect to the calculation of anti-dumping margins and that with
respect to those DSB recommendations and rulings not yet addressed, its
administration would work with Congress so as to resolve the matter. Japan
called on the US to fully implement the DSB’s recommendations.
DS160: United States — Section 110(5) of the US copyright act
The US reported that its
administration would continue to confer with the EU and work with Congress
to resolve the matter. The EU was again disappointed by the non-compliance
on the part of the US and added that it remained ready to work with the US
towards the complete resolution of the case.
European Communities — Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of
The EU reported that its regulatory
procedures on biotech products continued to work as foreseen in the
legislation and that as of 2 March 2010, five authorisation decisions had
been issued, raising the number of GMOs authorised since the establishment
of the Panel to 29. Progress had also been made on other applications. The
EU thanked Argentina and Canada for their constructive approach and hoped
that the US would re-engage in dialogue. The US noted that the EU was
considering modifications to its biotech approval procedures and looked
forward to holding constructive discussions with the EU. The EU clarified
that the modifications were not related to the Panel’s findings.
United States — Measures Relating to Zeroing and Sunset Reviews
The US reported that it had taken
steps to implement the DSB’s recommendations and rulings and that with
regard to the outstanding issues, it would continue to consult with
interested parties. Japan once again called on the US to fulfil its
commitment while the EU recalled that immediate compliance with DSB
recommendations and rulings was not an option but an obligation under the
Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU).
United States — Continued Existence and Application of Zeroing Methodology
The US said that it had taken steps
to implement the DSB’s recommendations and rulings in this case and that
with regard to the remaining issues, it would continue to consult with
interested parties. The EU reiterated its concerns about non-compliance on
the part of the US and said that the final determination in Section 129
proceeding of 12 March 2010 left the EU perplexed as to the US intentions on
United States — Laws, Regulations and Methodology for Calculating Dumping
The US reported that it had taken a
number of steps to implement the DSB’s recommendations and rulings and that
it would continue to consult with interested parties with regard to the
remaining issues. The US also recalled that it had objected to the EU’s
request to suspend concessions or other obligations and that the matter had
thus been referred to arbitration. The EU reiterated its disappointment with
the lack of real progress by the US on compliance with adverse rulings on
raised by WTO members back to top
United States — Continued Dumping and Subsidy
Offset Act of 2000
This item was once again on the
agenda at the request of the EU and Japan. Japan and the EU, supported by
Brazil, Canada, China, India and Thailand, called on the US to stop the
transfer of anti-dumping and countervailing duties to its industry and
present status reports until the issue was resolved.
European Communities — Export Subsidies on Sugar
This item was once again on the
agenda at the request of Australia, Brazil and Thailand. Australia, also
speaking on behalf of Brazil and Thailand, recalled their joint statements
made at previous DSB meetings as well as at the Committee on Agriculture
meeting on 10 March 2010 expressing their concern about the EU’s decision to
export out-of-quota sugar in excess of its quantity commitment level.
Australia, Brazil and Thailand urged the EU to provide the necessary
technical information underpinning its decision and to justify the WTO
consistency of its decision. The EU reiterated that its decision was
temporary and that it fully respected its international obligations. The EU
expressed readiness to continue a dialogue regarding the background
underpinning its decision.
Korea — Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Certain Paper from Indonesia
This item was on the agenda at the
request of Indonesia. Indonesia expressed its disappointment over the
statement made by Korea at the previous DSB meeting on 18 May 2010 and
regretted Korea’s continued lack of cooperation in this dispute.
While Korea was of the view that its
violations were procedural rather than substantive, Indonesia was not aware
of any formal distinction between “substantive” and “procedural” obligations
under the Anti-Dumping Agreement. Indonesia added that the main issue
involved Korea’s failure to comply with the requirements of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement in selecting the information to be used to calculate the dumping
margin for the Indonesian exporters and was thus a substantive issue.
Furthermore, Korea had recently initiated a sunset review that may lead to
the continuation of the WTO-inconsistent measure. Indonesia concluded by
stating that it retained its rights under the DSU arising out of the Article
21.5 panel report.
In response, Korea said that it had
fully implemented the recommendations of the Compliance Panel and that with
respect to the sunset review, the process was ongoing in a manner consistent
with both the WTO and Korean laws.
Other business back to top
Amendments proposed by the
Appellate Body to the Working Procedures for Appellate Review
The Chairman reported that on 27
May 2010, in accordance with the DSB Decision of 19 December 2002 (WT/DSB/31),
he had conveyed to the Appellate Body, the views expressed by members at
the 18 May DSB meeting on the proposed amendments to the Working
Procedures for Appellate Review, by forwarding to them the record of that
meeting. Furthermore, he had also conveyed to the Appellate Body the
written comments submitted by 13 delegations: Australia, Chile, China,
Guatemala, Japan, Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Singapore, Chinese Taipei,
Thailand, Turkey and the US. These written comments would be annexed to
the minutes of the 18 May DSB meeting.
In accordance with paragraph 4 of
the 2002 DSB Decision, the Chairman had requested that members’ views and
written comments be taken into account by the Appellate Body. It was his
understanding that the Appellate Body was currently in the process of
reviewing the views and comments received from members.
Next meeting back to top
The next meeting of the DSB is
scheduled for 20 July 2010.