|
I. Surveillance of implementation of recommendations adopted by the DSB
 back to top
A. United States — Section 211 Omnibus
Appropriations Act of 1998: Status report by the United States
(WT/DS176/11/ADD.42)
The US reported that US Administration was working
with Congress to implement the DSB's rulings.
B. United States — Anti-dumping
Measures on
Certain Hot-rolled Steel Products from Japan: Status report by the United
States
(WT/DS184/15/ADD.42)
The US reported that the US Administration would
continue to work with Congress to enact legislation to implement the DSB’s
recommendations.
C. United States — Section 110(5) of the US
Copyright Act: Status report by the United States
(WT/DS160/24/ADD.17)
The US said that the US Administration continued to
work closely with the US Congress and continued to confer with the EC.
D. European Communities — Export
Subsidies on
Sugar: Status report by the European Communities
(WT/DS265/35
—
WT/DS266/35
—
WT/DS283/16)
The EC informed for the first time the DSB on the
measures taken to comply with DSB rulings before the expiration of the
reasonable period of time (rpt) on 22 May 2006. The EC announced that the
Council adopted Regulation N° 318/2006 on the common organization of the
markets in the sugar sector. The EC said that this Regulation contained also
the necessary power for the EC to adopt the measures required to fully
implement DSB recommendations. It said that this reform would not only be
painful for EC farmers, but also for ACP countries. One of its main
consequences would be to turn the EC from a net exporter into a net importer
of sugar, it said.
The three co-complainants, Brazil, Thailand,
Australia, thanked the EC for this status report. However, they raised
concerns. First, while the EC reported that the Regulation would provide the
necessary legal power for the Commission to reform its sugar regime, on the
other hand, it stated that these relevant implementing measures were
currently under preparation. They claimed that the EC would not be able to
comply within the 5 days remaining in its rpt. Second, they asked the EC to
justify why the EC's export quantity and budget expenditures of subsidized
sugar were exceeding the limit fixed by the EC's schedules, i.e. 1.273
million tonnes and 499 million euros per year respectively. Australia added
that in 2005/2006, subsidized sugar exports from the EC were forecast to
reach record levels, of between 7-8 million tonnes, compared to average
annual exports of around 5.5 million tonnes. As a comparison, Australia
explained that quantities exported in excess of schedule commitment limits
were roughly equivalent to the total Australian sugar production.
II. Implementation by the European Communities of the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in relation to
“European Communities — Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of
Bananas” (WT/DS27) and related subsequent WTO proceedings back to top
A. Statements by Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama
As at previous meetings, Honduras,
Panama and Nicaragua, continued to maintain that the EC had failed to bring its
measures into conformity with its obligations under the DSB’s
recommendations in the Bananas dispute. They said that the new banana
tariff continued to discriminate against MFN suppliers, and that the
consolidated tariff rate was not €176 per tonnes, as
officially announced,
but €680, which was 9 times
the previous rate.
The complaining members requested that this item be considered by DSB as an
implementation issue. The EC objected to this request.
III. United States
— Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000: Implementation of the recommendations adopted by the DSB back to top
A. Statements by Canada, the European Communities and Japan
Canada, the EC, Japan and other countries
stated that since the repeal of the CDSOA would come into effect in October
2007, they could not agree with the US statement that it had fully
implemented. They argued that
the transition clause in the proposed legislation would postpone the repeal
of the CDSOA until October 2007 and allow duties collected before then to be
disbursed subsequently. As a result, they continued to urge the US to
provide status reports until it fully complied with the DSB's
recommendations.
The US said that it failed to understand why it should provide this
report since the US congress approved on 1 February 2006 the Deficit
Reduction Act of 2005, including a provision to repeal the the CDSOA - the
so-called “Byrd Amendment” and on 8 February 2006, President Bush signed the
Act into law. The US stated that it had fully implemented the rulings by
repealing the CDSOA.
IV. United States
— Countervailing Measures Concerning Certain Products from the European Communities (DS212): back to top
A. Statement by the European Communities
The EC continued to request the US to provide a
status report that would provide further clarifications regarding the
issuance of preliminary findings from the Department of Commerce. The US
confirmed that the US Department of Commerce was working on new
determinations in the sunset reviews.
V. United States
— Measures Affecting Trade in Large Civil Aircraft back to top
A. Initiation of the procedure for developing information concerning serious prejudice under
Annex V of the SCM Agreement and designation of Mr. Mateo Diego-Fernández as the DSB representative referred to in paragraph 4 of that Annex for the development of evidence to be examined by the panel in
DS317 established on 17 February 2006 in the form of written responses by the United States to written questions from the DSB representative to the United States pursuant to Annex V, paragraph 1 and Annex V, paragraph 2 of the SCM
Agreement
(WT/DS317/5)
The DSB agreed to the Chairman's proposal to suspend
the consideration of this item in order to allow consultations. The Chair said that
he would revert to this item when he considered it appropriate.
VI. United States
— Final Dumping Determination on Softwood Lumber from Canada: Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Canada back to top
A. Report of the panel (WT/DS264/RW)
The Chair informed that Canada had notified the DSB of its decision to appeal the
compliance Panel Report (Article 21.5) in the case on United States — Final
Dumping Determination on Softwood Lumber from Canada (WT/DS264).
Accordingly, this item was not included on the Agenda of today's
meeting.
VII. Selection
Process for Appointment of an Appellate Body Member back to top
A. Statement by the Chairman
The
Chair reported that eight candidates had been nominated for the position by
seven countries: Australia, Benin, China, Ghana, Kenya, Mexico and South
Africa. The Selection Committee, which was established by the DSB on 17
February to carry out the process, would interview the candidates during the
period from 27 June until 30 June, with the aim of completing
the process before the summer break.
Other business
The US reported that on 11 May 2006, the US congress
passed legislation to repeal the “grandfather” provision of the American
Jobs Creation Act and the ETI Act. The US announced that President Bush was
expected to sign the legislation later.
The EC warmly welcomed this action. The EC stated that
once President
signed the bill, the sanctions that had been suspended
during the second compliance review but were due to be re-introduced on 16
May 2006, would end.
Date of the next meeting
The next meeting of the DSB will be on 30 May 2006
and 19 June 2006.
|
