Request for panel establishment volver al principio
These are cases that have completed the consultation phase, the first
stage of a dispute. When consultations have failed, member governments are
entitled to ask for a panel to be set up to examine the dispute. According
to the rules, the respondent can reject the first request. At the second
request, a panel is automatically established.
Mexico — Anti-Dumping Duties on Steel Pipes and Tubes from Guatemala
Guatemala requested for the second time a panel
to examine the definitive anti-dumping measures imposed by Mexico on
imports of certain steel pipes and tubes from Guatemala and the
investigation leading to the imposition of these measures initiated by the
Mexican investigating authority, the Secretaría de Economía.
Mexico expressed disappointment over the decision by Guatemala to request
the establishment of the panel. It still hoped that a mutually
satisfactory solution to the dispute could be found.
The DSB agreed to establish the Panel. The US, Honduras, Japan, the EC and
China reserved their third-party rights.
Turkey — Measures Affecting the Importation of Rice
The US requested for the second
time that the DSB establish a panel for considering Turkey restrictive
import regime on the importation of rice. The US argued that Turkey
required importers to purchase large quantities of domestic rice under
tariff-rate quotas. It added that Turkey would not permit importation
without an import licence, for which a domestic purchase is required.
Turkey regretted the US' decision to re-introduce the request for the
establishment of a panel. Turkey asked the DSB to rule on DSU
Article 12.10. While there were no preceding case law on the right of developing
countries stemming from Article 12.10, Turkey believed that such request
would be in line with the spirit of the current development round.
The Chairman indicated that he had been in consultations with the parties
on the Turkish request under Article 12.10 but unfortunately there had
been no mutually agreeable solution to this particular issue. As a
consequence, the DSB is obliged to follow provisions of Article 6 which
sets the panel.
China, Australia, Korea, Thailand and the EC reserved their third-party
Request for compliance panel
volver al principio
At the end of the period given to a
government to comply with a ruling, the parties to the dispute sometimes
disagree on whether that government has fully complied. In such situation,
the matter can be referred to the original panel who will decide whether
the ruling has been applied properly.
United States — Sunset Reviews of Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country
Tubular Goods from Argentina
Argentina requested the
establishment of a compliance panel according to Article 21.5, considering
that the US failed to comply with the DSB recommendations (the reasonable
period of time for implementation expired on 17 December 2005).
The US was disappointed that Argentina was having recourse to a compliance
panel. However, the US added that it would accept it, as agreed in the
Understanding signed with Argentina (WT/DS268/14).
The DSB established the compliance panel. Mexico, Japan, the EC and China
reserved their third-party rights.
Request for information-gathering process and facilitator under Annex V of
the Subsidies Agreement
volver al principio
United States — Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft
Annex V, the process
is initiated to obtain information necessary “to analyze the adverse
effects caused by the subsidized product” (para 2), and “shall be
completed within 60 days of the date on which the matter has been referred
to the DSB” (para 5). The purpose of the facilitator is “to ensure the
timely development of the information necessary to facilitate expeditious
subsequent multilateral review of the dispute” (para 4).
Following the establishment of a panel to help to resolve a number of
procedural matters in the dispute of large civil aircraft on 17 February
2006, the EC requested for the third time the DSB to initiate the
procedures for developing information-gathering under Annex V of the SCM
Agreement. Although the panel was established, the EC reiterated that the
US' rejection of the resumption of the information-gathering in principle
was not acceptable. The EC said it would therefore take action to preserve
its rights and would request the facilitator to invite the US to reply to
Annex V questions which the US refused to reply.
The US reiterated that the EC was
seeking to reopen an information-gathering process that had already ended
with regard to the initial EC allegations of subsidization of large civil
aircraft. The US argued that in fact the rules which only required the
submission of information on two occasions – 11 November 2005 for initial
questions and 22 December 2005 for responses to follow-up questions -
would not allow the resumption of the process. In doing so, the US
believed that the EC would unilaterally extend the process beyond the 60
days provided by the SCM Agreement and the 90 days agreed upon with the
Brazil and Canada, as third
parties, said that Annex V sets out no additional requirement for the
establishment of the procedures but the request itself and the referral of
the matter to the DSB. As a result the DSB should initiate the procedures
and designate a facilitator.
The DSB took note of the statements
volver al principio
US — Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000
Japan; Brazil; Canada; Chile;
Indonesia; Hong Kong, China; India; China; Korea; Mexico; Thailand and the
EC stressed on the importance of the US to fully comply with the DSB's
rulings. In that regard, they disagreed with the US asserting at the last DSB meeting on 17 February 2006 that it brought its measures fully into
conformity with the DSB's rulings. They argued that the transition clause in
the proposed legislation would postpone the repeal of the CDSOA until
October 2007 and allow duties collected before then to be disbursed
subsequently. As a result, they also urged the US to continue providing
status reports until it brought its measures into full conformity with the DSB's recommendations.
The US reported that on 1 February
2006, the US congress approved the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, including
a provision to repeal the the CDSOA - the so-called "Byrd Amendment" and on
8 February 2006, President Bush signed the Act into law. The US considered
that it had taken all actions necessary to implement the rulings and failed
to see the purpose of submitting status report.
United States — Countervailing Measures Concerning Certain Products from
the European Communities
The EC deplored the fact that the
US failed to provide a status report on the steps that it was taking to
bring its measures into conformity with the DSB's rulings. It added that
the EC would be interested in receiving clarifications and replies
concerning the estimated timetable regarding the issuance of preliminary
findings from the Department of Commerce. It recalled that the EC had
informed the DSB that the US had started section 129 proceedings on 29
November 2005 and that EC companies had already received and replied to
six questionnaires from US authorities. The exercise was expected to be
completed in 180 days. The EC concluded by hoping that the US would
implement fully the compliance panel findings and that it would provide
regular status reports to the DSB.
The US confirmed that the US Department of Commerce was working on new
determinations in the sunset reviews.
European Communities — Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution
DS27 and related subsequent WTO proceedings
Since the last DSB meeting, there
had been no positive developments in this case. Honduras and Panama
continued to argue that the new EC banana regime continued to discriminate
against MFN suppliers. They considered that the EC had failed to explain
to the MFN suppliers why this regime increased the tariff rate to €176,
which was more than double the previous rate. They called on the DSB to
keep the EC's non-compliant measures under surveillance and requested the
EC to fulfil its WTO obligations. They indicated that until a satisfactory
solution would be found to this dispute, they would continue to place this
item on the DSB's agenda.
The EC took note of the statements by Honduras and Panama, but it
expressed serious doubts as to whether the DSB was the appropriate forum
to discuss the issues raised by them. The EC indicated that it was ready
to hold further consultations with the complainants if they so wished.
Surveillance of implementation
volver al principio
After a ruling
has been adopted, the DSB keeps under surveillance the implementation of
the ruling until the issue is resolved.
Within 30 days after the date of adoption, the Member concerned must
inform the DSB of its intentions in respect of implementation of the
Six months after the implementation time period has been fixed, the Member
must start presenting at each DSB a status report of its implementation —
until full implementation.
Implementation status reports
- The European Communities presented the following status report:
European Communities — Protection of Trademarks and Geographical
Indications for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs
The EC reported that a new regulation
on geographical indications (GI) was being discussed in the Council of the
European Union and the European Parliament. The EC noted that the proposal
would undergo a number of changes in the course of the on-going legislative
procedure in order to address Members' concerns expressed at previous DSB
meetings. The EC added that it was confident that the Commission's proposal
would be adopted within the agreed reasonable period of time (3 April 2006).
Australia and the US expected that the EC will take the concerns on
trademark rights and the treatment of non-EC geographical indications right
holders into account. They concluded by saying that they would welcome the
opportunity to discuss this matter further with the EC.
United States presented the following status reports:
United States — Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and
The US reported that the US
administration was working with the US Administration on the appropriate
steps to resolve the matter.
Antigua and Barbuda recalled that the implementation deadline of 3 April
2006 was approaching. It added that it was its first experience with
dispute resolution and it had perhaps naively expected the US would have
engaged on devising an equitable resolution. It explained that legislation
had been introduced in the US Congress, but it was about as directly
contrary to the DSB rulings as could possibly be imagined. It concluded by
believing that it was the time for the US to demonstrate whether it was
willing to be a responsible stakeholder in the WTO.
United States — Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998
The US reported that US
Administration was working with Congress to implement the DSB's rulings.
United States — Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Products
The US reported the Administration
would continue to work with Congress to enact legislation to implement the DSB’s recommendations.
United States — Section 110(5) of US Copyright Act
The US said that US Administration
continued to work closely with the US Congress and continued to confer
with the EC.
reunión volver al principio
La próxima reunión ordinaria del
OSD se celebrará el 24 de marzo de 2006.