Panel request

DS415—DS416—DS417—DS418: Dominican Republic — Safeguard measures on imports of polypropylene bags and tubular fabric

Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador requested, for the first time, the establishment of a single Panel (WT/DS415/7, WT/DS416/7, WT/DS417/7, WT/DS418/7) to review the safeguard measures imposed by the Dominican Republic on imports of plastic bags and tubular fabric.

The DSB deferred the establishment of a Panel following the objection of the Dominican Republic.

All four complainants stated that these safeguard measures were inconsistent with WTO rules. They all said that consultations, which were held on 16-17 November 2010, failed to resolve the matter even if they made it possible for parties to come closer together and exchange views.

In particular, Costa Rica said that the measure at stake resulted in a complete halt of its imports which had a very harmful effect on its industry. Costa Rica expressed concerns as to the extremely easy way with which the Dominican Republic was using an exceptional mechanism.

El Salvador said that prior to consultations it had raised this issue in the WTO Committee on Safeguards (a summary of this meeting, held on 26 April 2010, can be consulted here) and added that this measure had a negative effect on exports into the Dominican market. 

The Dominican Republic said that consultations made it possible for an open dialogue and exchange of views and added that it was not possible to resolve the various positions of the parties in one single round of negotiations. The Dominican Republic could therefore not agree to the establishment of a Panel and concluded that effort in dialogue should be maintained.

 

back to top

Implementation 

DS322—DS350—DS294 — Zeroing: The US presented a similar status report (WT/DS322/36/Add.16, WT/DS350/18/Add.13 and WT/DS294/38/Add.7) in these three cases.

The US continued to believe that rulings on zeroing go beyond what the text of the agreements provided and what negotiators agreed to in the Uruguay Round.

The US announced that a proposal was made on 28 December 2010 by the Department of Commerce to respond to the findings in zeroing disputes, to change the calculation of weighted average dumping margins and assessment rates in certain anti-dumping proceedings and to address the findings made in connection with sunset reviews. The US said that the public would be able to comment on this proposal until the 27 January 2011 (editor's note: The US Commerce Department's International Trade Administration decided to extend this deadline to 18 February 2011) and that appropriate committees in the US Congress would be consulted. The US added that this proposal was not yet final and that it was a very challenging domestic implementation process.

The EU welcomed the publication of the US Department of Commerce's proposal and said that if adopted and implemented correctly, it would contribute to ending the zeroing practice in administrative reviews. The EU said that while this was a step in the right direction, it should be clear that the proposal, even if adopted and implemented correctly, would not bring about full implementation unless it is supplemented by additional measures. The EU recalled that the Appellate Body made it clear that compliance implied not only cessation of zeroing in the assessment of duties but also in consequent measures that derive mechanically from the assessment of duties. The EU asked how the US intended to deal with excess duties paid.

Japan welcomed the US proposal to amend certain procedures on anti-dumping as a positive development. Japan said that the proposal did not make clear whether it would suffice to implement the DSB's recommendations. Japan understood that it was not the US intention to leave room for the use of methodologies found to be WTO inconsistent. Japan was concerned about how the “as applied” measures would be addressed by the US proposal. Japan continued to seek prompt and full compliance by the US and would closely monitor developments.

DS397: EC — Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Iron or Steel Fasteners from China

The Panel report (WT/DS397/R) related to this dispute was circulated on 3 December 2010.  Under Article 16.4 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU), the 60-day period within which the DSB is obliged to adopt a panel report that is not appealed, would have expired on 3 February 2010.

Taking into account the workload of the Appellate Body, China and the EU jointly requested (WT/DS397/6) that the DSB adopt a draft decision to extend the 60-day time period to 25 March 2011.

Following this joint request, the DSB agreed that it shall, no later than 25 March 2011, adopt the Panel report, unless the DSB decides by consensus not to do so or China or the EU notifies the DSB of its decision to appeal following Article 16.4 of the DSU.

DS367: Australia — Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples from New Zealand

In this case, the Panel and Appellate Body reports were adopted on 17 December 2010. According to the WTO rules, Australia had 30 days after the adoption of the reports to inform the DSB of its intentions to implement the DSB rulings.

As agreed with New Zealand, Australia informed the DSB of its intentions to implement the rulings by written notification within the 30-day timeframe (WT/DS367/18).

Australia reiterated its intention to implement the DSB's rulings in a manner that met its WTO obligations. Australia would conduct a review of existing policy for New Zealand apples for the three pests at issue in the dispute and said it would need a reasonable period of time to carry out this review. 

New Zealand thanked Australia of its written notification regarding its intention to implement the DSB's rulings and looked forward to further discussions on the reasonable period of time.

  

back to top

Next meeting 

The next meeting of the DSB will be held on 7 February 2011.