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.
DS460: China — Measures Imposing Anti-Dumping Duties on High-Performance Stainless Steel Seamless Tubes (“HP-SSST”) from the European Union
At the request of the European Union, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) established a panel to examine this dispute. The EU said that anti-dumping duties imposed by China on imports of steel tubes from the EU were inconsistent with the WTO's Anti-Dumping Agreement. Consultations to resolve the matter had failed, hence the EU's request for the establishment of a panel. The EU noted that the matter in this dispute was the same as in DS454 where a panel had already been established and composed. Thus, in light of Article 9.3 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU), the EU would agree to having the same panellists as in DS454 examine this dispute. The EU was ready to engage with a view to harmonizing the timetables for the two disputes.
China said that the imposition of the anti-dumping measure was consistent with its obligations under WTO rules. China noted that, at Japan's request, the DSB had already established a panel in DS454 to consider a similar measure now challenged by the EU. In order to allow the proceedings in the two disputes to be promptly harmonized, China agreed to the establishment of a panel in DS460 and agreed with the EU on having the same panellists as in DS454. Japan said that, since the EU's claims under DS460 were related to the same measures as DS454, it was ready to cooperate with the harmonization of the procedures under Article 9.3 of the DSU.
DS461: Colombia — Measures Relating to the Importation of Textiles, Apparel and Footwear
Following Colombia's objection, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel to examine this dispute, as requested by Panama.
Following the US objection, the DSB deferred the establishment of panels under Article 21.5 of the DSU to examine these disputes, as requested by Canada and Mexico.
DS285: US — Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services
St Lucia, speaking on behalf of Antigua and Barbuda, made a statement regarding this dispute. St Lucia reiterated Antigua and Barbuda's concern regarding the continued US failure to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings in the dispute. The United States said that it remained committed to a constructive dialogue with Antigua and Barbuda to resolve this dispute.
DS381: US — Measures Concerning the Importation, Marketing and Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products
Mexico noted that the United States had published a measure to implement the DSB's recommendations in this dispute but, in its view, that measure did not comply with the WTO's ruling, and it maintained two separate regulatory regimes. The US reiterated that it had amended its dolphin-safe labelling requirements so as to bring those requirements into compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings.
The United States presented status reports on the following disputes: US — Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998; US - Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Products from Japan; US — Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act; and US — Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Shrimp from Viet Nam.
DS291: EC — Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products
The European Union provided a status report on this dispute.
DS371: Thailand — Customs and Fiscal Measures on Cigarettes from the Philippines
Thailand presented a status report on this dispute.
The European Union and Japan made statements concerning this dispute.
back to top
Under “Other Business”, the Chair made statements regarding Appellate Body matters and the 2013 Annual Report of the DSB. With regard to Appellate Body matters, the Chair recalled that nominations for the appointment of one Appellate Body member had been received from the delegations of Kenya, Cameroon, Australia and Egypt. He reminded delegations that the deadline for nominations was 30 August 2013, as agreed by the DSB decision contained in document WT/DSB/60. He recalled that the Selection Committee would conduct interviews with candidates and hear the views of delegations in September/October and make its recommendation by no later than 7 November 2013 so that the DSB could take a decision on appointment at its regular meeting of 25 November 2013.
The Chair informed delegations that he would be in contact with the Selection Committee to reconfirm the process to be followed and to agree on a timetable for interviews and to set aside time to hear the views of delegations on the candidates before making a final recommendation. Once the timetable is agreed, he would send a fax to delegations updating them on the process and would request the WTO Secretariat to make the necessary arrangements for the Selection Committee to hear the views of delegations.
He reminded delegations that they could make their views known to the Selection Committee in writing through the DSB Chair. The deadline for the submission of written comments would be communicated shortly. Delegations wishing to meet with the candidates were invited to contact directly the missions of the respective nominating members. With regard to the possible re-appointment of Mr Van den Bossche, he said that he was continuing with his consultations.