| Japan
— Countervailing Duties on Dynamic Random Access Memories from Korea WT/DS336/5
 back to top
Korea requested for the second time the DSB to
establish a panel to consider the countervailing measures taken by Japan
against Dynamic Random Access Memories (DRAMS) produced by Hynix in Korea.
Korea considered the measures imposed by Japan to be
inconsistent with Japan’s obligations under the relevant provisions of the
GATT 1994, and the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (“SCM
Agreement”). Korea had requested for the first time the establishment of the
panel at the DSB meeting on 30 May 2006.
Japan said that it regretted that
Korea had chosen to pursue this matter further by making its second request
for the establishment of a panel. It added that it was certain that the
panel would find that the countervailing measures against the subsidises on
Korean DRAMS would comply with WTO Agreements.
The DSB agreed to establish the panel.
Members who reserved their third-party rights were
the US, the EC and China.
Full summary of the meeting
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.43)
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.43)
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.18
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/ADD.1
— WT/DS266/35/ADD.1
— WT/DS283/16/ADD.1)
The EC informed the DSB of the measures
taken to comply with DSB rulings since the last status report at the DSB
meeting on 17 May 2006. The EC announced that the Commission
Regulation No 769/2006 of 19 May 2006 entered into force which allowed for
the return of export licences for C sugar issued but not used by 22 May 2006
and suspended the further issuance of export licences for C sugar from 23
May 2006. The EC concluded that it was in a position to maintain its subsidized exports of
sugar within its commitments as from the marketing year 2006/2007. As a
consequence, the EC believed that it fully complied with DSB rulings within
the reasonable period of time (22 May 2006).
In the light of the status report, the three
co-complainants, Brazil, Thailand, Australia were not in position to agree
on EC's compliance with DSB recommendation. They claimed that the EC's
export quantity and budget expenditures of subsidized sugar were exceeding
the limit fixed by the EC's schedules for the 2005/2006 marketing year. For
them, compliance meant that the EC would have stopped exporting illegally
subsidized sugar as of 23 May 2006. (see also Item VI below)
E. European Communities
— Customs Classification of Frozen Boneless Chicken Cuts:
Status report by the European Communities (WT/DS269/15
— WT/DS286/17)
The EC said that it was pleased to report that the
draft legislation under the form of a Commission Regulation would fully
implement the relevant DSB findings. It added that the Commission was
working
hard to ensure that this legislation would be enacted and enter into force
at the latest by the expiry of the reasonable period of time on 27 June
2006.
Brazil informed that it was following closely the
EC's implementation action and expected that by 27 June, the EC would fully
comply with its obligations under the DSB.
Thailand expressed concerns regarding the
information contained in EC's status report. It said that EC statement might
be transparent but it was not very clear. Thailand would thus continue
to actively monitor the EC's implementation process and looked forward to a
more detailed status report by the EC. Thailand noted the possibility that
the EC could adopt the legislation on 27 June, but that it would not enter
into force until 20 or 30 days later.
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” and related subsequent WTO proceedings back to top
A. Statements by Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama
No development under this item: 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
continued to argue that they could not agree with the US that it had
fully implemented the WTO rulings. They maintained 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. The EC explained that the US Customs and Border
Protection administration published on 1 June 2006 a notice of intent to
distribute offset payments for fiscal year 2006 under CDSOA. These first
steps were in process and would result in a new distribution starting on 1
October 2006 and would add to the nullification and impairment already
caused not only to co-complainants in the dispute but also to the whole WTO
membership, added the EC. Brazil indicated that in the view of the recent
information by the US customs authorities, the preliminary amounts up to 30
April 2006 to be distributed under the CDSOA next October 2006 would exceed US$ 170 million. As a result, the co-complainants urged the US to provide status reports
until it fully complied with the DSB's recommendations.
The US stated 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 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
reported that the US Department of Commerce issued on 26 May 2006 its
final revised determinations in the sunset reviews involving certain steel
products from Spain and the United Kingdom. According to the US, the
Commerce determined in both cases that revocation of the countervailing duty
order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable
subsidy. As a result, the US concluded the it had implemented the DSB
rulings.
V. United States
— Anti-Dumping Measure on Shrimp from Ecuador back to top
A. Request for the establishment of a panel by Ecuador (WT/DS335/6)
Ecuador requested for the first time the
establishment of a panel concerning the US anti-dumping measures involving
certain frozen Warmwater Shrimp from Ecuador. Ecuador argued that the US
practice of zeroing in its investigation was not consistent with the
Anti-dumping Agreement. Ecuador added that it was quite confident that its
position was correct since the Appellate Body had already found that “zeroing”
method
by the US was inconsistent on two prior occasions.
The US responded by stating that, in the light of
an ongoing effort to resolve this matter with Ecuador, the panel request was
premature and therefore, the US was not in position to agree to its
establishment.
VI. European Communities
— Export Subsidies on Sugar back to top
Joint request by Australia and the European Communities (WT/DS265/36);
Joint request by Brazil and the European Communities (WT/DS266/36);
Joint request by Thailand and the European Communities (WT/DS283/17)
Given the disagreement between the
co-complainants and the EC over the latter's compliance, the parties had
reached bilateral understandings on how to proceed with the resolution of
the three disputes. These understandings had been notified to the DSB on 8
June 2006.
The DSB agreed to the procedures in
the understandings.
VII. Proposed nomination for the indicative list of governmental and non-governmental panelists (WT/DSB/W/322) back to top
The DSB approved the additional name
proposed for inclusion on the indicative list of governmental and
non-governmental panelists, in accordance with Article 8.4 of the DSU.
Next meeting back to top
The next DSB meetings will be
on 22 June and 19 July 2006.
|
