|
Request for panel establishment back to top
These are cases that have completed
the consultation phase, the first stage of a dispute. When consultations
have failed, member governments are entitled to ask for a panel to be set
up to examine the dispute. According to the rules, the respondent can
reject the first request. At the second request, a panel is automatically
established.
DS317:
United States — Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft
The EC requested for the second
time the establishment of panel to resolve a number of procedural
“imbroglios” that have risen in the panel established on 20 July 2005. The
EC explained at the last DSB meeting that this “limbo” needed to be
resolved quickly since the EC considered that it has been deprived of its
rights to access the documents relevant, in particular regarding NASA and
Departments of Defence subsidies, to the dispute. The EC also requested at
this meeting that the DSB initiate further the procedures for developing
information-gathering under Annex V of the SCM Agreement.
The US expressed regret about the EC's action, as it considered that the
best approach would have been a mutual agreement on this panel request.
Although the panel would be established at this DSB meeting, the US asked
for consultations with the EC regarding the relationship between this
panel and the one established on 20 July 2005 (DS317). Furthermore, the US
added that it was not in position to accept EC's request to begin an
information-gathering process. According to the US, this so-called Annex V
procedures could not start until the parties agreed on the modalities,
noting that the Annex V procedures initiated on 23 September 2005 for the
civil craft dispute were inadequate.
The DSB agreed to establish the
panel.
Members who reserved their
third-party rights were Japan, Australia, Canada, Brazil and China.
DS331: Mexico — Antidumping duties on steel pipes and tubes from
Guatemala
Guatemala requested for the first
time a panel to be established for examining the definitive anti-dumping
measures imposed by Mexico on imports of certain steel pipes and tubes
from Guatemala and; the investigation leading to the imposition of these
measures initiated by the Mexican investigating authority, the Secretaría
de Economía.
Mexico objected to the
establishment of the panel, believing that a mutual solution could be
found among the two countries.
DS334: Turkey — Measures affecting the importation of rice
The US requested that the DSB
establish a panel for considering Turkey restrictive import regime on the
importation of rice. According to the US, US exports of rice to Turkey
have plummeted, from 300,000 metric tons in 2000 to 58,000 metric tons in
2004.
Turkey said that at this stage it
opposed to the establishment of a panel and would continue the
consultations with the US.
Surveillance of implementation back to top
After a ruling has been adopted,
the DSB keeps under surveillance the implementation of the ruling until
the issue is resolved.
Within 30 days after the date of
adoption, the Member concerned must inform the DSB of its intentions in
respect of implementation of the ruling.
Six months after the implementation
time period has been fixed, the Member must start presenting at each DSB a
status report of its implementation — until full implementation.
Implementation status reports
- The United States presented the following status reports:
DS217 &
DS234: US — Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000
The US reported to the DSB that on 1 February 2006, the US congress
approved the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, including a provision to
repeal the the CDSOA — the so-called “Byrd Amendment”. Furthermore, on 8
February 2006, President Bush signed the Act into law. As a result, the US
announced that it had taken the necessary actions to implementation the
DBS rulings.
Although the recent steps taken by the US were welcomed, ten speakers did
not agree with the US's statement that it had now complied with the
rulings. They considered that as long as a transitional clause would allow
disbursements to be made until October 2007, the WTO incompatibility would
persist.
Thailand and Australia recalled to the US that they have reserved their
right to be granted DSB authorization to resort to suspension of
concession
DS176: US — Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998
The US reported that US Administration was working with Congress to
implement the DSB's rulings.
The EC, Cuba, China, Brazil, India
and Venezuela expressed concerns about the continuation of a
non-compliance in respect to this case and urged the US to implement the
decision of DSB rulings as soon as possible.
DS184: US — Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel
The US reported the Administration would continue to work with Congress to
enact legislation to implement the DSB’s recommendations.
Japan expressed concerns about the
bill H.R. 2473 which was put before the Congress in May 2005. Japan asked
for more information on the state of play of this legislation.
DS160: US — Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act
The US said that US Administration continued to work closely with the US
Congress and continued to confer with the EC.
The EC regretted the slow progress
showed by the US in solving this dispute. The EC called upon the US to
take the necessary action. Finally, the EC recalled that it had reserved
its rights to reactive at any point in time the arbitration on its
retaliation request.
- The European Communities
presented the following status report:
DS174 &
DS290: EC — Protection of Trademarks and Geographical Indications
for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs
The EC reported for the second time to the DSB that the Commission
proposed to the Council of the European Union a new regulation on
geographical indications(GI). The EC also provided with answers to certain
questions raised by the US and Australia about the new EC's legislation.
Implementation back to top
EC — Regime for the Importation,
Sale and Distribution of Bananas
DS27 and related subsequent WTO proceedings
Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama made statements under this item to report
on the absence of progress in the consultations with the EC regarding its
banana import regime of 176 euros/mt that the EC applied since beginning
of 2006.
The EC said that it listened carefully to the statements but considered
that the DSB is not the appropriate forum to discuss the matter. It also
expressed its disagreement with the categorization of the latest as an
“implementation issue” under the DSB surveillance. Nevertheless, the EC
showed willingness to address the issues raised today and any other issues
related to the new EC bananas regime in the appropriate fora.
Election of DSB chairperson back to top
The DSB elected Ambassador Muhamad
Noor (Malaysia) as chairperson of this body following a consensus decision
taken at the General Council on 8 February 2006.
Appointment / Re-appointment of
Appellate Body members back to top
The DSB Chairman launched the
process for selecting a new Appellate Body member to replace the late Mr.
John Lockhart for the remainder of his term, until 11 December 2009. For
this propose, the DSB agreed to establish a Selection Committee consisting
of the Director General and the 2006 Chairpersons of the General Council,
the Goods Council, the Services Council, the TRIPS Council and the DSB in
accordance with the procedures outlined in WT/DSB/1. He announced that the
Selection Committee would begin its work after the candidates submission
deadline of 31 March 2006.
Next
meeting back to top
The next regular meeting of the DSB
will be on 17 March 2006.
|
