This summary has been prepared by the WTO Secretariat’s Information and External 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.
DS430: India — Measures Concerning the Importation of Agricultural Products
The US introduced its request for a panel (WT/DS430/3). The US said that, as it had explained at the May 2012 DSB meeting, the US and other members had concerns about India’s measures prohibiting the importation of various agricultural products into India from members reporting outbreaks of Low Pathogenic Notifiable Avian Influenza (LPAI). The US was of the view that such measures had no scientific basis; were inconsistent with the guidelines of the World Organization for Animal Health; and appeared to be inconsistent with a number of India’s WTO obligations. Thus, the US requested, for the second time, the establishment of a panel to examine the matter.
India said that during the consultations, it had provided explanations and scientific rationale and was disappointed that the US had chosen to litigate rather than negotiate the matter. India considered that its measures were consistent with its WTO obligations and stood ready to defend them.
The DSB established a panel with standard terms of reference. China, Colombia, Ecuador, EU, Guatemala, Japan and Viet Nam reserved their third party rights to participate in the panel’s proceedings.
The following issues were also discussed:
a) US — Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998 (DS176). The US reported that legislative proposals had been introduced in Congress and that it would continue to work on solutions to implement the DSB’s recommendations. The EU hoped that the US would soon implement the DSB’s ruling and resolve the matter. Brazil, Cuba, Bolivia, Angola, Venezuela, Ecuador, China, Nicaragua, Viet Nam, Argentina and the Dominican Republic reiterated their systemic concerns about the delay in the implementation of the DSB’s recommendations and urged the US to comply. In response, the US said that it had complied fully and promptly in the vast majority of its disputes and noted that most speakers under this item were silent when the US had announced solutions to the zeroing issue that had occupied much of the WTO’s time and resources. Cuba (supported by Venezuela) said that the US statement did not reflect reality. It had taken over 10 years and still no result.
b) US — Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Products from Japan (DS184). The US said that with respect to the DSB’s recommendations and rulings not already addressed by its authorities, its Administration would work with Congress with regard to appropriate statutory measures that would resolve the matter. Japan called on the US to fully implement the DSB’s recommendations without further delay.
c) US — Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act (DS160). The US said that it would continue to confer with the EU and to work with Congress so as to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution to this matter. The EU looked forward to resolving the dispute as soon as possible.
d) EC — Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products (DS291). The EU hoped that it could continue on the constructive path of dialogue with the US. The technical meetings held in 2011 had offered a good opportunity to discuss issues of concern to both sides and to follow up on developments in the biotech field. In 2012, the Commission had authorized 3 more GMOs and had renewed the authorization of a fourth one. With regard to US concerns about the delays in the EU approval system, the EU recalled that its approval system was not covered by the DSB’s recommendations and rulings and that it was working normally. The US reiterated its substantial concerns regarding EU measures affecting the approval of biotech products, including delays in the approval system. The measures and delays continued to result in substantial restrictions on the importation of US agricultural products, according to the US.
e) US — Anti-Dumping Administrative Reviews and Other Measures Related to Imports of Certain Orange Juice from Brazil (DS382). The US recalled that its Department of Commerce (USDOC) modification published in February 2012 applied to all anti-dumping reviews including those concerning the products of Brazil covered in this dispute. In April 2012, based on a determination by the US International Trade Commission, the anti-dumping duty order on the products covered in this dispute was revoked as of March 2012. In May 2012, the US rescinded the administrative review of the anti-dumping duty order for the period 1 March 2011 through 8 March 2011. The US added that it stood ready to engage with Brazil pursuant to the agreement between them. Brazil said that it was following up on the US implementation efforts and would consult with the US with a view to resolving this dispute.
f) US — Definitive Anti-Dumping and countervailing Duties on Certain Products from China (DS379). The US reported that USDOC had issued preliminary determinations with respect to certain issues in this dispute. On 31 May 2012, USDOC issued to interested parties a preliminary determination with respect to the issue of “double remedy”. USDOC had also given an opportunity for interested parties to provide comments on those preliminary determinations and to provide rebuttal comments on any comments submitted by other interested parties. Furthermore, the US recalled that on 14 May 2012, the US and China had notified the DSB of their agreement on procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU (WT/DS379/14). China noted that it has been 15 months since the adoption of the reports. China urged the US to expedite its implementation efforts and reserved its right to take further action under the DSU provisions
g) Thailand — Customs and Fiscal Measures on Cigarettes from the Philippines (DS371). Thailand reported that it had issued a Customs Regulation on Administration regarding the Customs Guarantees, which established an independent review process for the review of decisions to require customs guarantees clearance of goods pending final determination of the customs value. Thailand’s Board of Appeals would meet in the coming weeks with a view to completing the appeals on the valuation of the entries at issue in this dispute. Thailand was also working towards completing the revision of the administrative requirement for VAT reporting by the end of the reasonable period of time on 15 October 2012. Thailand added that it had concluded a sequencing agreement with the Philippines (WT/DS371/16) covering the recommendations and rulings for which the reasonable period of time was 10 months, which expired on 15 May 2012. The Philippines said it was assessing Thailand’s implementation efforts and continued to have bilateral contact with Thailand.
h) US — Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Shrimp from Viet Nam (DS404). The US noted that on 31 October 2011, the US and Viet Nam had notified the DSB that the reasonable period of time would expire on 2 July 2012. In February 2012 the USDOC had published a modification to its procedures regarding the use of zeroing which would address certain findings in this dispute. Viet Nam said it expected the US to fully comply within the reasonable period of time and reaffirmed its right to pursue any legal proceeding within the WTO in order to protect its interests.
i) US — Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing and Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products. The US said that, pursuant to Article 21.3 of the DSU, it intended to implement the DSB’s recommendations and rulings in a manner that respected its obligations. The US would thus need a reasonable period of time to implement. Mexico said that it was ready to discuss the reasonable period of time with the US.
j) US — Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (DS217; DS234). The EU and Japan, supported by Brazil, India, Canada, and Thailand called on the US to stop the transfer of anti-dumping and countervailing duties to its industry and to present status reports until the issue was resolved. In response, the US said that it had taken all actions necessary to implement the DSB’s recommendations and rulings.
A special meeting of the DSB will be held on 10 July 2012. (see agenda)
The next regular meeting of the DSB will be held on 23 July 2012.