The DSB establishes panels for two cases: Brazil measures affecting imports of retreaded tyres; Chile price band system and safeguard measures relating to certain agricultural products

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.

DS332: Brazil — Measures Affecting Imports of Retreaded Tyres

The EC requested for the second time the establishment of a panel for examining Brazilian discriminatory measures against EC imports of retreaded tyres. The EC argued that the import ban was violating some of the most fundamental rules of the GATT 1994.

Brazil regretted that the EC decided to re-introduce its request for a panel. Brazil believed that by insisting, the EC demonstrated that it was counting on developing countries to get rid of large volumes of unwelcome rubber wastes in a cheap and efficient manner.
The DSB agreed to establish the Panel. Argentina, Australia, Korea, Japan and the US reserved their third-party rights.

  

back to top

Request for compliance panel 

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.

  
DS207: Chile — Price Band System and Safeguard Measures Relating to Certain Agricultural Products

Argentina disapproved the measures adopted by Chile in order to comply with the DSB rulings. As a result, Argentina asked for the establishment of a compliance panel. Chile contested Argentina's arguments but according to a bilateral understanding between both parties regarding procedures under DSU Articles 21 & 22, it accepted the establishment of that compliance panel (WT/DS207/16).
  
The DSB agreed to establish the compliance panel. Australia, US, Colombia and the EC reserved their third-party rights.
 

  

back to top

Implementation 

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

Honduras and Nicaragua had announced their wish to make statements under this item.

Honduras objected to the revised EC tariff level on banana imports in force since the beginning of 2006. It said that the new tariff of 176 euros/mt, which was more than the double of the one applied in the past, discriminated against non ACP imports, more specifically against Latin American countries. Whereas ACP countries have been granted a preferential tariff rate-quota, Honduras indicated that its revenue per capita is only 704 dollars, which is inferior to the GDP of the 32 ACP countries. As a consequence, it called upon the DSB to urgently keep under surveillance the EC regime for the banana imports in order to ensure effective resolution of this dispute.

Nicaragua added that there was no doubt that the new EC's regime has been designed to protect EC banana producers and their 300 millions dollars of subsidises received annually. For Nicaragua, the EC persistence to refuse the application of DSB recommendations was extremely worrying. Therefore, Nicaragua requested the DSB to ensure that the EC would comply promptly and fully with its WTO obligations.

Panama and the US questioned also whether this new EC's tariff was maintaining the same market access advantage for all banana suppliers. In addition, they expressed some concerns about the special tariff-quota that the EC allocated to some suppliers (ACP) and not others.

The EC noted its disagreement with the matter to be categorized as an “implementation issue” under the DSB surveillance. It said that the EC would continue to hold consultations with all interested parties with the assistance of Norwegian Minister Store, who was assigned as a facilitator on this issue at the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference.

  

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.

  

back to top

Implementation status reports 

- The European Communities presented the following status report:

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

The EC presented its first status report, in which it reaffirmed its intention to implement the rulings before 3 April 2006. In addition, it announced that the Commission proposed to the Council of the European Union a new regulation on geographical indications (GI).

Although the US and Australia welcomed the report, they flagged similar concerns related to the new legislation. Firstly, one key provision of the existing GI regulation to justify the panel analysis of Article 17 of the Trips Agreement was omitted in the new legislation. Secondly, a trademark owner not resident or established in an EC Member State does not seem to have the right to object to the recognition of a GI.

- The United States presented the following status reports:

DS176: US — Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998

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

The EC said that once again, the US made a report on “non progress”. Cuba added that, to date, the US administration had neither presented nor promoted any bill to modify the Section 211. Brazil and China encouraged the US to give full effect to the objective of prompt compliance.

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

The US said that the US Administration continued to work with US Congress to enact legislation to implement the DSB's rulings.

Japan strongly hoped for final resolution by the US's compliance

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

The US announced that the US Senate approved on 21 December 2005 the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, including a provision to repeal the the CDSOA — the so-called “Byrd Amendment”. However, as the Senate modified one provision, although not related to the CDSOA repeal, the House would need to vote again the entire legislation.

Among speakers, the EC, Canada, Japan and Brazil welcomed the recent steps taken by the US Administration but registered some concerns regarding a transitional clause that would allow disbursements to be made until October 2007. With this concern in mind, they encouraged the US to complete the necessary legislative process to repeal the Byrd Amendment.

  
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 noted that five and a half years after the adoption of the Panel report, the US obstinately maintained its legislation that violated intellectual property rights. Nevertheless, the EC hoped that the US Administration would invest more resources this year than in year 2005 to find solution with the US Congress. Finally, the EC recalled that it had reserved its rights to reactive at any point in time the arbitration on its retaliation request.

  

back to top

Appointment / Re-appointment of Appellate Body members 

The DSB Chairman, Eirik Glenne, informed of its intention to initiate at the next meeting the process for selecting a new Appellate Body member in replacement of Mr. John Lockhart (Press/432).

  

back to top

Next meeting 

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