> 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.
Prior to the adoption of the agenda, Ecuador requested that item 3, relating to the Banana case between the EC and Ecuador (WT/DS27), be removed from the agenda with the objective of continuing negotiations with the EC and finding a satisfactory solution.
DS344: United States — Final anti-dumping measures on stainless steel from Mexico
The DSB adopted the Panel and the
Appellate Body (AB) reports in this case (WT/DS344/R and
WT/DS344/AB/R).
Mexico welcomed the adoption of the reports especially since the AB report
had upheld Mexico's arguments and reversed several conclusions of the Panel.
Mexico appreciated that the AB reiterated the incompatibility of the zeroing
method with the WTO rules. Mexico said that the proceedings could have been
avoided but the United States had refused to fully implement prior
recommendations from the DSB on the inconsistency of zeroing with the WTO
anti-dumping rules. Mexico hoped that the United States would fully comply
with the DSB recommendations and bring its measures into conformity with the
Anti-Dumping Agreement.
The United States welcomed the adoption of the Panel report that was
reversed by the AB report because the Panel departed from earlier AB rulings
on zeroing. The United States raised two systemic concerns about the use of
zeroing in assessment reviews and about the obligation of panels to follow
prior AB rulings.
According to the United States, the Anti-Dumping Agreement allowed the use
of zeroing in assessment reviews and the AB could not create new obligations
that imposed such a ban. On the obligation by panels to follow previous AB
rulings, the United States declared that panels were not required to follow
previous AB decisions but could take them into account if relevant to the
case.
Australia, Chile, Colombia, India, Hong Kong-China, Norway, Thailand, the EC
and Japan welcomed the confirmation from the Appellate Body that zeroing was
inconsistent with the Anti-Dumping Agreement. They called on the United
States to stop using zeroing and to comply promptly with the AB ruling.
India said that zeroing was a major negotiating issue in the current Doha
Round and added that there should be an express provision in the
Anti-Dumping Agreement that prohibits zeroing in any form.
There was a debate among members on whether or not panels were obliged to
follow AB decisions.
Some members argued that prior AB rulings constituted a clear line of
jurisprudence that should be used by panels if relevant to the case
examined.
Some others argued that there was no provision in the Dispute Settlement
Understanding that requires panels to follow prior AB or other panel
findings. The panel or AB decisions are binding only to the parties involved
in a dispute.
back to top
Next meeting
The next meeting of the DSB will be held on 24 June 2008.
> Problems viewing this page?
Please contact [email protected] giving details of the operating system and web browser you are using.