WTO news: what’s been happening in the WTO


Dispute Settlement Body 23 August 2001
DSB establishes panel on “Byrd Amendment” — 23 August 2001

At its meeting on 23 August 2001, the DSB considered 6 requests for panels to examine complaints against the US, 2 of which were agreed, including one on the US “Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000” (Byrd Amendment).

150pxls.gif (76 bytes)
press releases
news archives
Mike Moore's speeches

Disputes in the WTO



This summary has been prepared by the WTO Secretariat’s Information and Media Relations Division to help public understanding about developments in WTO disputes. It is not a legal interpretation of the issues, and it is not intended as a complete account of the issues. These can be found in the reports themselves and in the minutes of the Dispute Settlement Body’s meetings.

Summary of meeting  Back to top

At its meeting on 23 August 2001, the DSB established 2 panels (Case DS217 and Case DS221), deferred requests for 4 panels (Case DS212, Case DS213, Case DS214, and Case DS234), and adopted reports on 3 disputes (Case DS194, Case DS46, and Case DS184).


Case DS217 and Case DS234: United States — Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000

The DSB established a panel to examine the US' Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (known as the “Byrd Amendment”) at the second-time request by Australia, Brazil, Chile, EC, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea and Thailand (WT/DS217/5). The co-complainants alleged that the redistribution of anti-dumping and countervailing duties to the “affected domestic producers” was against WTO rules. The US maintained that the Byrd Amendment was fully consistent with WTO. Israel, Mexico, Norway and Hong Kong, China reserved their 3rd party rights. Canada and Mexico also requested separate panels to examine their complaints regarding the Byrd Amendment (WT/DS234/12 and WT/DS234/13). But since this was the first time their requests were considered by the DSB, the US was able to block consensus according to WTO procedures.


Case DS221: United States — Section 129(c)(1) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act

The DSB also established a panel at the second-time request of Canada (WT/DS221/4) to examine the US Section 129(c)(1) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act. Canada alleges violations of the Anti-Dumping and Subsidies Agreements. Chile, EC, India and Japan reserved their 3rd party rights.


Case DS212: United States — Countervailing Measures concerning certain products from the EC

This was a first-time request by the EC for a panel to examine 12 countervailing duties orders by the US on steel products from various EU member states (WT/DS212/4). The US stated that these orders were consistent with the Subsidies Agreement and that it could not agree to a panel at that meeting.


Case DS213: United States — Countervailing Duties on Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Germany

This was a first-time request (WT/DS213/3) by the EC for a panel to examine a US “sunset” review (to determine whether or not a measure should expire). The EC stated that the main issue concerned the maintenance of measures where subsidization was at under de minimis levels in sunset reviews and no evidence was produced to show that it would rise above these levels. The US stated that its sunset review regime was fully in conformity with its obligations and that it could not agree to a panel at that meeting.


Case DS214: United States — Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Steel Wire Rod and Circular Welded Quality Line Pipe

This was a first-time request (WT/DS214/4) by the EC for a panel to examine two US safeguard measures which the EC maintained were inconsistent with the Safeguards Agreement and GATT 1994. The US stated that it could not agree to a panel at that meeting. In addition, the US pointed out that in its request for a panel the EC alleged that these measures were inconsistent “in particular but not necessarily exclusively” with certain provisions of the Safeguards Agreement and the GATT. According to the US, this phrasing suggested that if a panel were ever established the EC may attempt to allege violations of additional provisions not identified in its request. The US concluded that the EC request was, therefore, legally deficient as a matter of law.


The DSB adopted the following reports:  Back to top

WT/DS194/R: United States — Measures Treating Export Restraints as Subsidies

WT/DS46/RW/2: Brazil — Export Financing Programme for Aircraft - Second Recourse by Canada to Article 21.5 of the DSU

WT/DS184/R and WT/DS184/AB/R: United States — Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Products from Japan

Under “Other Business”, India made a brief statement concerning the EC's implementation in the case DS141: EC — Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Cotton-Type Bed Linen from India. India stated that on 14 August 2001, the last day of the reasonable period of time for implementation, the EC had brought into force its Regulation No. 1644/2001 to implement the DSB rulings in this case. However, India was concerned that this did not fully implement the rulings and reserved its rights under DSU. The EC confirmed that its regulation had come into effect on 14 August, and said that it would discuss with India the latter's concerns.


Next meeting Back to top

The next regular meeting of the DSB is due to be held on 25 September 2001.

150pxls.gif (76 bytes)
How to search for and download official documents

To search for documents on disputes follow this link to access the WTO on-line document database.

Insert the codes indicated (e.g. “WT/DS217/5”) in the “document symbol” window of the search engine.