DS457: Peru — Additional Duty on Imports of Certain Agricultural Products
Pursuant to the second request from Guatemala, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) established a panel to examine the dispute “Peru — Additional Duty on Imports of Certain Agricultural Products”. Argentina, China, El Salvador, the European Union, India and the United States reserved their third-party rights to participate in the panel’s proceedings.

Guatemala referred to its statement made at the June DSB meeting on this matter and noted that the parties to this dispute continued to have different views. Guatemala said that the bilateral agreement between the two parties did not discharge Peru of its WTO obligations, hence Guatemala’s second request for panel establishment. Peru expressed its disappointment that Guatemala had made a second panel request. With regard to Peru’s views on this dispute, it referred to its June statement. Pursuant to Article 6.2 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU), the DSB established a panel with standard terms of reference.

 

DS406: US — Measures Affecting the Production and Sale of Clove Cigarettes
DS381: US — Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing and Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products
The United States reported that it had fully complied with the DSB’s recommendations and rulings in two disputes: “US — Measures Affecting the Production and Sale of Clove Cigarettes” and “US — Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing and Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products”.

On DS406, Indonesia noted that the reasonable period of time will expire on 24 July 2013 and urged the US to provide more concrete progress on implementation. With regard to DS381, Mexico said that the new US measure did not comply with the DSB’s recommendations. Thus, Mexico will analyse and consider its legal options. 

 

DS413: China — Certain Measures Affecting Electronic Payment Services
China reported that it had fully implemented the DSB’s recommendations and rulings in this dispute. The US said that it did not agree with China’s assertion that it had fully complied. The US said that it would monitor and review China’s actions and noted that the reasonable period of time would expire on 31 July 2013.

 

Status reports and statements

DS176, DS184, DS160, DS404: The United States presented status reports on the following disputes: US — Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998; US-Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Products from Japan; US — Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act; US-Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Shrimp from Viet Nam.

DS291: The European Union provided a status report on the dispute “EC — Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products”.

DS371: Thailand presented a status report on the dispute “Thailand — Customs and Fiscal Measures on Cigarettes from the Philippines”.

DS217, DS234: The EU and Japan made statements concerning the dispute “US — Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000”.

 

Other business

Under “Other business”, the Chairman made statements on Appellate Body matters and on the Annual Report of the DSB.

 

Appellate Body

On Appellate Body matters, the Chairman reported that he was continuing his consultations on the possible reappointment of Mr Van Den Bossche. He was also continuing his consultations on the Appellate Body workload report. In that regard, he briefed members on the recently held informal meeting of the Budget Committee where this matter was discussed.

The discussion focused on Secretariat resources, both human and financial, taking into account the zero budget increase. Thus, the challenge was for the Secretariat itself to look at allocation and reallocation of resources to respond to where the needs are greatest. The Chairman said that, in his consultations with members on this issue, there was an emerging view that the challenges faced by the Secretariat should not exhaust or exclude further options of addressing the increase in the workload of the Appellate Body. In that regard, he urged members to come forward with ideas on how, for example, the Appellate Body could improve its own working methods and scheduling.

Also on Appellate Body matters, he reminded delegations that, with regard to the Appellate Body vacancy, only one nomination had been submitted and that the deadline was 30 August 2013.