DS474: EU — Cost Adjustment Methodologies and Certain Anti-Dumping Measures on Imports from Russia

Russia requested the establishment of a panel on this dispute saying that certain EU anti-dumping measures and cost adjustment methodologies severely hampered trade and raised systemic concerns. In Russia’s view, the measures were inconsistent with a number of WTO Agreements. Consultations were held in February and April 2014 but did not resolve the matter hence Russia’s request. The EU said that Russia’s allegations were unfounded and that it was in full compliance with the WTO Agreements. The EU was therefore not in a position to agree to the establishment of a panel.

 

DS440: China — Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties on Certain Automobiles from the United States

Report of the Panel. The US noted that the Panel had correctly found that China’s anti-dumping and countervailing duty measures had serious substantive and procedural deficiencies under WTO rules. The US further noted that other Members were pursuing similar claims involving other anti-dumping and countervailing duties measures adopted by China and hoped that China would respond to this series of disputes by making the systemic changes necessary to begin operating its anti-dumping and countervailing duties regimes in accordance with WTO rules.

China welcomed the Panel’s support of China’s claims regarding certain issues in this dispute in particular the Panel’s agreement with all of China’s defences on the issue of China’s Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) definition of domestic industry. The Panel had also endorsed MOFCOM’s investigative procedures as striking an appropriate balance between the rights of parties and administrative efficiency, and for its neutrality and openness. However, China regretted the Panel’s conclusion that the measures at issue were inconsistent with the Anti-Dumping and the SCM Agreements. China informed the DSB that the measures at issue were terminated on 15December 2013 and thus, China did not need to take any further action to implement the recommendations and rulings in this dispute.

 

DS400, DS401: EU — Measures Prohibiting the Importation and Marketing of Seal Products

Reports of the Appellate Body and Reports of the Panel. Canada said that it was pleased that the Appellate Body (AB) and the Panel Reports confirmed its long-standing position that the EU’s ban on imports of Canadian seal products was inconsistent with the EU’s international trade obligations. However, Canada was disappointed that the AB and the Panel had concluded that the EU Seal Regime, on the basis of a very broad reading of Article XX(a), was necessary to protect public morals. Canada believed the AB’s findings in relation to the public morals exceptions would ultimately set a negative precedent. Canada noted that the AB did, nonetheless, find that the EU Seal Regime was applied in a manner that constituted arbitrary and unjustifiable discrimination.

Norway welcomed the AB’s agreement with the Panel that the EU Seal Regime was discriminatory and not justifiable under Article XX of the GATT 1994. However, Norway was disappointed that the AB did not reverse the Panel’s conclusion that the EU Seal Regime contributed to the specific public moral concerns of the EU.

The EU said that it was pleased with the AB’s confirmation that the ban on the importation and marketing of seal products was justified on moral grounds. The EU regretted that the AB found the exception for hunts conducted by Inuit and other indigenous communities not to be designed and applied in a manner consistent with the chapeau of Article XX of the GATT 1994. The EU mentioned that it would inform the DSB by means of a written communication of its intentions in respect of implementation of the DSB’s recommendations and rulings within 30 days as required the DSU.

 

DS412, DS426: Canada — Certain Measures Affecting the Renewable Energy Generation Sector/Canada — Measures Relating to the Feed-in Tariff Program.

Under “Other Business”, the EU and Japan made statements regarding the disputes The EU and Japan were each surprised and concerned that Canada had not submitted a status report on these disputes nor inscribed this item on the Agenda. Canada had, instead submitted a written communication to the parties and to the DSB stating that it had complied with the DSB’s recommendations and rulings in these disputes. The EU said that it would inscribe this item on the Agenda of the next DSB meeting so that Canada could explain why it declared full compliance while explicitly admitting that the legislative procedure was aborted due to political circumstances. Similarly, Japan found it difficult to understand how Canada could claim full compliance given that Canada had not taken any further action. Canada said that it was surprised that it was required to provide a status report since it had sent a notification of compliance to the DSB on 5 June 2014. Canada did not wish to comment further on the content of its notification.

Several members (the United States, the European Union and Thailand) submitted reports on their implementation of the DSB recommendations and rulings on different disputes.

 

DS413:  China — Certain Measures Affecting Electronic Payment Services

The US said that it continued to have serious concerns that China had failed to bring its measures into conformity with its WTO obligations. China said that it had taken all necessary actions and had fully implemented the DSB’s recommendations and rulings in this dispute. In China’s view, actions being sought by the US were beyond China’s compliance obligations.

 

DS285:  US — Measures Affecting the Cross Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services

Antigua and Barbuda expressed its dismay that it had not received any settlement offer from the US that would settle this dispute. Antigua and Barbuda was concerned that the US believed it could ignore the requirements of Article 21.6 of the DSU. In its view, all Members must honour their obligations or eventually no one would. The US said that it remained committed to finding a solution to this dispute and that it was not US policy to comment publicly on ongoing negotiations. The US added that it was waiting for a counter proposal from Antigua and Barbuda. Dominica (speaking on behalf of OECS countries), Grenada, Jamaica, Nicaragua, India, Brazil, Cuba, Venezuela, Argentina, Trinidad & Tobago, China and South Africa expressed their concern that this dispute had yet to be resolved.

 

back to top

Other business 

Appellate Body Selection Process. Also under “Other Business”, the Chairman made a statement on the AB selection process. He recalled that two new nominations had been received from Kenya and Mauritius. He further recalled that candidates from Cameroon and Egypt, nominated last year, remained under consideration in the current selection process. He informed delegations that, after the 30 June deadline expired, he would be in contact with the Selection Committee to confirm the process to be followed; to agree on a timetable for interviews; and to set aside time to hear the views of delegations before making a final recommendation. Once the timetable is agreed, he would update delegations by fax and he would request the Secretariat to make the arrangements to set up appointments for the Selection Committee to hear delegations’ views. He recalled that delegations were also free to send their views in writing to the DSB Chair in care of CTNC division. A deadline for the written comments would be communicated by fax shortly after the 30 June 2014 deadline. Delegations wishing to meet with the candidates were invited to contact directly the respective Missions

 

back to top

Next meeting 

The next regular meeting of the DSB is scheduled for 22 July 2014.