back to top

Implementation of the recommendations of the DSB 

DS316: European Communities and Certain Member States — measures affecting trade in large civil aircraft

On 1 June 2011, the DSB adopted the Panel and Appellate Body reports (WT/DS316/R and WT/DS316/AB/R) which examined the EU’s subsidies to its civil aircraft industry. 

According to Article 7.9 of the Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM) Agreement, the EU had until 1 December 2011 to implement the DSB ruling. On 1 December 2011, the EU issued a communication (WT/DS316/17) referring to the implementation of the DSB recommendation.  

The EU announced it has taken appropriate steps to bring its measures fully into conformity with its WTO obligations and to comply with the DSB recommendations. The EU said it had ensured full implementation. The EU expressed serious concerns that despite its compliance report, the US had already made a request under article 22.2 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) for authorisation to suspend concessions (WT/DS316/18) and that the US had also initiated consultations under Article 21.5 of the DSU (WT/DS316/19).   

The US said that it had carefully reviewed the steps taken by the EU and added that they did not bring the EU into compliance with the DSB ruling. In light of its serious questions regarding the EU’s compliance, the US said it had requested consultations with the EU (note: Article 21.5 of the DSU) as well as DSB authorisation to take countermeasures. In relation to the EU’s concerns regarding this request, the US said that the EU’s statement did not appear to be consistent with either past practice or the clear and relevant provisions of the DSU. According to the US, under article 22.6 of the DSU, the negative consensus rule applies with 30 days of the end of the period for compliance. By submitting the article 22.2 request, the US is preserving its negative consensus rights. Taking this step is neither surprising nor unusual, said the US. Similar actions have been taken by other members in other disputes, including by the EU, in the FSC case (WT/DS108), according to the US. The US added that it was considering the EU’s proposal for a bilateral sequencing agreement.

The EU responded that both parties clearly disagree on compliance and that there was a very clear procedure to resolve this disagreement under Article 21.5 of the DSU. The EU looked forward to the consultations with the US to resolve this dispute.

 

Panel requests

DS425: China — definitive anti-dumping duties on x-ray security inspection equipment from the European Union

The EU requested for the first time the establishment of a panel (WT/DS425/2) to review anti-dumping duties imposed by China on European x-ray scanners. 

The DSB deferred the establishment of a panel following China’s objection.

The EU said that it was seriously concerned about the anti-dumping duties imposed by China on x-ray scanners from the EU, which according to the EU, were inconsistent with the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement. The EU was confident that this panel request would lead to the removal by China of these anti-dumping duties and, as a consequence, re-establish fair conditions of operation for the EU industry in the Chinese market.

China regretted that the EU had requested the establishment of a panel instead of continuing consultations. China said that relevant measures identified by the EU were fully consistent with WTO anti-dumping rules. China concluded that it was not in a position to accept the establishment of a panel.

DS427: China — anti-dumping and countervailing duty measures on broiler products from the United States

The US requested for the first time the establishment of a panel (WT/DS427/2) to examine anti-dumping and countervailing American chicken broiler products.

The DSB deferred the establishment of a panel following China’s objection.

The US said that China’s dumping and subsidy determinations appeared to be inconsistent with WTO rules. The US said it had attempted to resolve this issue through dialogue with China both during and after the investigation at issue. The US added that, unfortunately, these efforts had failed to resolve the dispute.  

China regretted that the US had requested the establishment of a panel. China said that the American imports at issue constituted dumping and had benefited from the US government’s subsidies. China added that the dumped and subsidised imports had caused material injury to the domestic Chinese industry. China concluded that it disagreed with the establishment of a panel.

 

European Union — sugar export subsidies

This item was placed on the agenda at Australia’s, Brazil’s and Thailand’s joint request.  

Australia, Brazil and Thailand expressed concerns regarding the EU’s recent decision to authorise the export of an additional 700,000 tons of out-of-quota sugar for 2011/2012, which according to the three countries was likely to exceed the EU’s WTO commitments.

All three countries also mentioned that, earlier this year, the EU had already allowed exports of 650,000 tons of out-of-quota sugar.

Australia was concerned that these additional exports would depress the world sugar price to the detriment of unsubsidised Australian and other sugar producers. Australia added that this would encourage continued over-production in the EU, thereby unwinding the important reforms the EU had undertaken to its sugar industry.

Brazil said that the EU had thus authorized exports of 2,050,000 tons of sugar for the year 2011-2012. Brazil added that the EU could not simply authorize the exports of subsidised sugar in excess of its WTO commitments every time its production overshot the relevant regulatory targets.

Thailand urged the EU to respect its WTO export subsidy commitments for sugar.

The EU said that it abided by its international commitments on export subsidies for sugar. The EU said that its recent decision led to an increase of 650,000 up to 1,350,000 tons of export for out-of-quota exports for the year 2011-2012. The EU added that the quantity of 1,350,000 tons remained well within its WTO quantitative commitments on export subsidies (1,374,000 tons).

 

Implementation

DS402: United States — Use of zeroing in anti-dumping measures involving products from Korea.

On 24 February 2011, the panel report was adopted by the DSB (WT/DS402/R).

As agreed with Korea, the US had until 24 October 2011 to implement the ruling in relation to diamond sawblades and until 24 November 2011 to implement the ruling in relation to stainless steel plate in coils and stainless steel sheet and strip in coils.

The US reported it had fully implemented the DSB ruling within the reasonable period of time (WT/DS402/7).

Korea welcomed the implementation and said that it was looking for prompt implementation in other zeroing cases.

 

Adoption of report

DS405: European Union — anti-dumping measures on certain footwear from China

The panel report (WT/DS405/R) related to this dispute was circulated on 28 October 2011.

Under Article 16.4 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU), the 60-day period within which the DSB is obliged to adopt a panel report that is not appealed would have expired on 28 December 2011.

Taking into account the current workload of the Appellate Body, the EU and China jointly requested (WT/DS405/5) that the DSB adopt a draft decision to extend the 60-day time period to 22 February 2012.

The DSB agreed to extend the deadline for the adoption or appeal of the panel report to 22 February 2012.

Japan referred to its statements from the previous DSB meetings of 21 April 2011, 27 September 2011 and 11 November 2011

Japan and the US said that a decision of this kind must remain an exception.

  

back to top

Next meeting 

The next regular meeting of the DSB will be held on 20 January 2012.