WTO: 2006 NEWS ITEMS

Dispute Settlement Body 19 July 2006

DSB establishes panels in reference to shrimp and gambling services disputes 

The Dispute Settlement Body, on 19 July 2006, established a panel to examine US measures on shrimp from Ecuador (DS335) and a compliance panel to review US implementation of “gambling” rulings (DS285).

> Disputes in the WTO
> Find disputes cases
> Find disputes documents

> Disputes chronologically
> Disputes by subject
> Disputes by country

  

SEE ALSO:
> Press releases
> News archives
> Pascal Lamy’s speeches

  

NOTE:
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.

United States — Anti-Dumping Measure on Shrimp from Ecuador  back to top

A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by Ecuador (WT/DS335/6)

Ecuador requested for the second time the establishment of a panel concerning the US anti-dumping measures involving certain frozen Warm water Shrimp from Ecuador. Ecuador argued that the US practice of zeroing had a very negative effect on Ecuador's shrimp industry, the largest private sector export to the US and the second largest export industry, representing 10% of Ecuador total export in 2005 with a value of over US$ 450 million. Ecuador added that it was quite confident that its position was correct since the Appellate Body had already found that “zeroing” method by the US was inconsistent on two prior occasions.

The DSB agreed to establish the panel.

Members who reserved their third-party rights were Thailand, India, Brazil, China, Japan, the EC and Korea.

  

United States — Measures affecting the cross-border supply of gambling and betting services  back to top

A.  Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Antigua and Barbuda: Request for the establishment of a panel (WT/DS285/18)

Antigua and Barbuda requested the formation of a compliance panel. It said that the US had been busy passing legislation that was directly and unequivocally contrary to the DSB rulings. Out of the entire universe of remote gaming offered to Americans, in the past months the US Department of Justice had chosen to indict the principals of two Antiguan licences, it argued.

The US expressed disappointment. However pursuant to a procedural agreement with Antigua and Barbuda (WT/DS285/16), it accepted the establishment of the compliance panel.  The US said that the issue of compliance was limited, clear and straightforward. It explained that the DSB found that the US had not shown that the US legal prohibitions applied to both foreign and domestic suppliers of remote betting services for horse racing. The US concluded by stating that it was now in position to show that the US prohibitions apply not only to foreign but also to domestic suppliers.

The DSB agreed to establish the compliance panel.

Members who reserved their third-party rights were Japan, the EC and China.

  
  

Full summary of the meeting

I.  Surveillance of implementation of recommendations adopted by the DSB  back to top 

A.  United States — Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998:
Status report by the United States
(WT/DS176/11/ADD.44)

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

B.  United States — Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan:
Status report by the United States
(WT/DS184/15/ADD.44)

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

C.  United States — Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act:
Status report by the United States
(WT/DS160/24/ADD.19)

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

 

D.  European Communities — Customs classification of frozen boneless chicken cuts:
Status report by the European communities
(WT/DS269/15/ADD.1WT/DS286/17/ADD.1)

The EC announced that the Commission Regulation (EC) N°949/2006 amending the Council Regulation (EEC) N°2658/87 on the Tariff and Statistical Nomenclature and on Common Customs Tariff was adopted and entered into force on 27 June 2006.  Therefore, the EC concluded that it fully complied with DSB rulings within the reasonable period of time (27 June 2006) fixed by the arbitrator.

Brazil responded that it was still assessing the scope and effects of that provision. It pointed out that while the findings of the panel and Appellate Body comprised all products contained in 0210 classification, the commission regulation apparently provided guidelines exclusively in relation to chicken cuts (021099). Therefore, Brazil was not in a position to adopt the EC's report concluding that it fully complied with DSB rulings.

  

II.  Implementation by the European Communities of the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in relation to “European Communities — Regime for the importation, sale and distribution of Bananas” (DS27) and related subsequent WTO proceedings  back to top

A.  Statements by Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama

Honduras, Panama and Nicaragua continued to argue that the EC had failed to bring its measures into conformity with its obligations under the DSB’s recommendations in Bananas dispute. They argued that the new banana regime was no different, as it continued to discriminate against MFN suppliers.

The “disagreement” between the complaining members and the EC about the consistency of the measures adopted by the EC and the legitimacy of the DSB as an appropriate forum to discuss the issues remains unsolved.

  

III.  United States — Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000: Implementation of the recommendations adopted by the DSB  back to top

A.  Statements by Canada, the European Communities and Japan

Canada, the EC, Japan and other countries continued to argue that they could not agree with the US that it had fully implemented the WTO rulings. They maintained that the transition clause in the proposed legislation would postpone the repeal of the CDSOA — the so-called “Byrd Amendment” and that such prospective repeal found to be in violation of the WTO Agreement. As a result, the co-complainants urged the US to provide status reports until it fully complied with the DSB's recommendations. 

The US stated that the US congress approved on 1 February 2006 the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, including a provision to repeal the the CDSOA  and  President Bush signed on 8 February 2006 the Act into law. As a result, the US considered that it had taken all actions necessary to implement the rulings and failed to see the purpose of submitting status reports.

  

IV.  United States — Anti-Dumping Act of 1916: Implementation of the recommendations adopted by the DSB   back to top

A.  Statement by Japan

Japan made a statement to illustrate the US' failure of compliance with DSB recommendations. Japan explained that the repeal of the US 1916 Anti-Dumping Act by the US Congress on December 2004 was prospective and this had no effect on pending US court litigations. As a consequence, Japan expressed deep regret and disappointment that a Japanese company was forced to pay a huge amount of damages pursuant to the 1916 Anti-Dumping Act. Without retrospective effect, the US implementation was partial, Japan argued.

The EC said that it had always been and was still the EC's position that a proper solution to WTO dispute on 1916 Act called for the repeal and the termination of ongoing court cases.

 In response to Japan's statement, The US made several remarks regarding the US court litigation to which Japan referred. Among them, it said that the court  proceeding revealed that the Japanese company in question had not only engaged in dumping, it had also forced a US competitor to close plants and lay off employees during this period. The US added that the court litigation revealed also that the same Japanese company had engaged in “very troubling activity”.

  

Next meeting  back to top

The next DSB meetings will be on 1 September 2006.