DS456: India — Certain Measures Relating to Solar Cells and Solar Modules

The United States reiterated its concern about India’s domestic content requirements under its solar energy programme known as the National Solar Mission (NSM). The US emphasized that it was not challenging India’s NSM Programme on the basis that it promotes solar power generation. Rather, the US was challenging the domestic content requirements in India’s measures that discriminate against imported solar cells and modules in favour of “like” domestic products. The US, for the second time, requested the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) to establish a panel to examine the matter set out in its panel request. The panel was established. Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Norway, the Russian Federation and Turkey reserved their third-party right to participate in the panel’s proceedings.

 

DS470: Pakistan — Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations on Certain Paper Products from Indonesia

Indonesia said it was concerned about Pakistan’s initiation of an anti-dumping and a countervailing duty investigation of imports of certain paper products from Indonesia and Pakistan’s failure to terminate these investigations in a timely manner. Consultations were held in February 2014 but they did not resolve the dispute. Indonesia believed that Pakistan’s investigations had resulted in estimated losses to Indonesia of approximately USD 1 million and that their continuation beyond the 18 month deadline had a significant adverse effect on imports from Indonesia. Indonesia also believed that Pakistan had failed to take steps to ensure that all its laws, regulations and administrative procedures are consistent with its obligations. Indonesia therefore requested the DSB to establish a panel to examine this matter and said that it remained open to further consultations with Pakistan with a view to reaching a mutually satisfactory solution.

Pakistan regretted Indonesia’s request and stated that no provisional or definitive anti-dumping or countervailing duties had been imposed by Pakistan on the products in question. Since the initiation of the investigations by Pakistan, Indonesia’s share of the import market had grown and both members had noted that the investigations did not have any economic impact on Indonesia. Pakistan was therefore not in a position to agree to the establishment of a panel and welcomed Indonesia’s readiness for dialogue. The DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.

 

DS413: China — Certain Measures Affecting Electronic Payment Services

The United States said it continued to have serious concerns that China had failed to bring its measures into conformity with its WTO obligations. The US was concerned that China maintained a ban on foreign suppliers of electronic payment services by imposing a licence requirement on them while providing no procedures for them to obtain that licence. China said that it has fully complied with the DSB’s recommendations and that actions being sought by the US were beyond China’s compliance obligations.

 

DS285: US — Measures Affecting the Cross Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services

Dominica, speaking on behalf of Antigua and Barbuda, said that since the previous DSB meeting, the United States had not made any attempt towards resolving this dispute nor had it explained why it failed to submit status reports on this matter. Dominican Republic, Argentina, India, Cuba, Trinidad & Tobago, Jamaica, Brazil, China and Venezuela supported Antigua and Barbuda’s concerns and urged the parties to resolve this dispute which affected the interests of a small and vulnerable developing-country member. In response, the US said that it remained committed to resolve this matter and had made multiple offers to Antigua and Barbuda. The US recalled that it had invoked the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) process to withdraw the gambling concession at issue and had reached agreement with all members except Antigua and Barbuda. With regard to the submission of status reports, the US failed to see the purpose.

 

Appellate Body selection process

Concerning the vacancy in the Appellate Body (due to the departure of David Unterhalter of South Africa), the chair of the DSB, Mexico’s ambassador Fernando de Mateo, proposed to members the start of a new selection process. He also proposed that the candidates nominated for the 2013 process would remain under consideration and it would not be necessary for members to re-nominate them. The new deadline for nominations would be 30 June 2014. Interviews and hearings would be conducted during July and September 2014 in order to make a recommendation to the DSB no later than 15 September 2014 so that the DSB could take a decision to appoint a new member on 26 September 2014. There was no objection to the chair’s proposal.

Australia made a statement in which it confirmed the formal withdrawal of its candidate, Ms Joan Fitzhenry, due to Australia’s “disappointment with how the original selection process transpired”.

 

Implementation

Several members (the United States, the European Union, Thailand and Canada) submitted reports on their implementation of the DSB recommendations and rulings on different disputes. Twenty members expressed concern for the delay in the implementation of the dispute between the United States and the European Union on “Section 211 omnibus appropriations Act of 1998” (the so-called Havana Club rum dispute). The members called for a prompt resolution to this long-standing dispute (DS176).

 

Next meeting

The next regular meeting of the DSB is scheduled for 18 June 2014.