The DSB establishes panel in reference to aircraft subsidy dispute

back to top

Request for panel establishment 

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.

DS317: United States — Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft

The EC requested for the second time the establishment of panel to resolve a number of procedural “imbroglios” that have risen in the panel established on 20 July 2005. The EC explained at the last DSB meeting that this “limbo” needed to be resolved quickly since the EC considered that it has been deprived of its rights to access the documents relevant, in particular regarding NASA and Departments of Defence subsidies, to the dispute. The EC also requested at this meeting that the DSB initiate further the procedures for developing information-gathering under Annex V of the SCM Agreement.

The US expressed regret about the EC's action, as it considered that the best approach would have been a mutual agreement on this panel request. Although the panel would be established at this DSB meeting, the US asked for consultations with the EC regarding the relationship between this panel and the one established on 20 July 2005 (DS317). Furthermore, the US added that it was not in position to accept EC's request to begin an information-gathering process. According to the US, this so-called Annex V procedures could not start until the parties agreed on the modalities, noting that the Annex V procedures initiated on 23 September 2005 for the civil craft dispute were inadequate.

The DSB agreed to establish the panel.

Members who reserved their third-party rights were Japan, Australia, Canada, Brazil and China.

DS331: Mexico — Antidumping duties on steel pipes and tubes from Guatemala

Guatemala requested for the first time a panel to be established for examining 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 objected to the establishment of the panel, believing that a mutual solution could be found among the two countries.

DS334: Turkey — Measures affecting the importation of rice

The US requested that the DSB establish a panel for considering Turkey restrictive import regime on the importation of rice. According to the US, US exports of rice to Turkey have plummeted, from 300,000 metric tons in 2000 to 58,000 metric tons in 2004.

Turkey said that at this stage it opposed to the establishment of a panel and would continue the consultations with the US.

  

back to top

Surveillance of implementation 

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 ruling.

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 United States presented the following status reports:

DS217 & DS234: US — Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000

The US reported to the DSB 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”. Furthermore, on 8 February 2006, President Bush signed the Act into law. As a result, the US announced that it had taken the necessary actions to implementation the DBS rulings.

Although the recent steps taken by the US were welcomed, ten speakers did not agree with the US's statement that it had now complied with the rulings. They considered that as long as a transitional clause would allow disbursements to be made until October 2007, the WTO incompatibility would persist.

Thailand and Australia recalled to the US that they have reserved their right to be granted DSB authorization to resort to suspension of concession

  
DS176: US — Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998

The US reported that US Administration was working with Congress to implement the DSB's rulings.

The EC, Cuba, China, Brazil, India and Venezuela expressed concerns about the continuation of a non-compliance in respect to this case and urged the US to implement the decision of DSB rulings as soon as possible.

  
DS184: US — Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel

The US reported the Administration would continue to work with Congress to enact legislation to implement the DSB’s recommendations.

Japan expressed concerns about the bill H.R. 2473 which was put before the Congress in May 2005. Japan asked for more information on the state of play of this legislation.

  
DS160: US — Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act

The US said that US Administration continued to work closely with the US Congress and continued to confer with the EC.

The EC regretted the slow progress showed by the US in solving this dispute. The EC called upon the US to take the necessary action. Finally, the EC recalled that it had reserved its rights to reactive at any point in time the arbitration on its retaliation request.

- The European Communities presented the following status report:

DS174 & DS290: EC — Protection of Trademarks and Geographical Indications for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs

The EC reported for the second time to the DSB that the Commission proposed to the Council of the European Union a new regulation on geographical indications(GI). The EC also provided with answers to certain questions raised by the US and Australia about the new EC's legislation.

  

back to top

Implementation 

EC — Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas DS27 and related subsequent WTO proceedings

Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama made statements under this item to report on the absence of progress in the consultations with the EC regarding its banana import regime of 176 euros/mt that the EC applied since beginning of 2006.

The EC said that it listened carefully to the statements but considered that the DSB is not the appropriate forum to discuss the matter. It also expressed its disagreement with the categorization of the latest as an “implementation issue” under the DSB surveillance. Nevertheless, the EC showed willingness to address the issues raised today and any other issues related to the new EC bananas regime in the appropriate fora.

  

back to top

Election of DSB chairperson 

The DSB elected Ambassador Muhamad Noor (Malaysia) as chairperson of this body following a consensus decision taken at the General Council on 8 February 2006.

  

back to top

Appointment / Re-appointment of Appellate Body members 

The DSB Chairman launched the process for selecting a new Appellate Body member to replace the late Mr. John Lockhart for the remainder of his term, until 11 December 2009. For this propose, the DSB agreed to establish a Selection Committee consisting of the Director General and the 2006 Chairpersons of the General Council, the Goods Council, the Services Council, the TRIPS Council and the DSB in accordance with the procedures outlined in WT/DSB/1. He announced that the Selection Committee would begin its work after the candidates submission deadline of 31 March 2006.

 

back to top

Next meeting 

The next regular meeting of the DSB will be on 17 March 2006.