11 September 2000
Panel to examine Canadian complaint
Three cases were on the proposed agenda of the Dispute Settlement Bodys 11 September 2000 meeting:
Case DS160: US Section 110(5) of the US Copyright ActImplementation by the United States of the panel report
The United States presented its communication DS160/9. It said it intends to implement the panels recommendations and rulings, which were adopted by the DSB on 27 July), and that it has begun to evaluate options for doing so. The US proposed a 15-month implementation period.
The EU said that 15 months is too long because the US does not need so much time to make the required legislative changes.
Australia said that it has a strong interest in the implementation as some Australian musicians are still deprived of this copyright protection in the US. Australia also said it believes that implementation should not be complex.
case arose because the EU complained that US law violated
WTO agreements because it permitted, under certain
circumstances, the playing of radio and television music
in public places (such as bars, shops, restaurants etc.)
without the payment of a royalty fee.
Case DS194: US Measures treating export restraints as subsidies
second request (WT/DS194/2) for a panel
Since this was the second request, the DSB agreed to establish the panel for this case. Canada argues that certain US measures treat exports restraints as subsidies and therefore provide that the United States will impose countervailing duties against practices that are not subsidies within the meaning of Article 1.1 of the [Subsidies and Countervailing Measures] Agreement.
The EU, Australia and India reserved their third party rights.
Case DS 161 Korea Measures affecting imports of fresh, chilled and frozen beefAppeal by Korea of the panel report (WT/DS161)
The item was dropped from the DSB agenda as Korea appealed the panel report a few hours before the meeting. The Appellate Body has between two to three months to examine the appeal and submit a report to the DSB.
The case was brought by the United States and Australia who complained that the Republic of Koreas quantitative restrictions, regulatory schemes and other measures on imports of fresh, chilled, and frozen beef violated WTO agreements, including Koreas domestic subsidy commitment in agriculture.