sback to top

Surveillance of implementation

DS160: United States ?Section 110(5) of the US copyright act

The US stated that Congress had made good progress on this issue and that it would notify additional information in the near future.

The European Communities welcomed US' efforts.
  

DS136 & DS162: United States ?Anti-dumping Act of 1916

The US recalled that, on 4 March 2003, legislation repealing the 1916 Act had been introduced in the US House of Representatives.

The EC urged the US to put a definitive end to this dispute by repealing the 1916 Anti-dumping Act and by terminating the on-going court cases.

Japan urged the US to ensure that bills repealing the 1916 Act with proper retroactive effects were introduced and passed before the summer recess of the current session of the 108th Congress.
  

DS176: United States ?Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998

The US stated that the US Administration continued to work with Congress to resolve this dispute.

The EC stated that the new deadline for implementation would expire at the end of next month and that the US' status report did not show any sign of concrete action towards implementation.
Like the EC, Cuba referred to the approaching deadline and expressed concern.
  

DS184: United States ?Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan

The US referred to the letter sent by United States Trade Representative Robert Zoellick and Secretary of Commerce Donald Evans to Congress supporting specific amendments to the Tariff Act of 1930 to implement the DSB's ruling and recommendations.

Japan stated that it was aware of the letter and urged the US to implement before the Congress' summer recess.
  

DS211: Egypt ?Definitive anti-dumping measures on steel rebar from Turkey

Egypt said that its investigating authority was currently re-examining its dumping calculations concerning two Turkish companies. Egypt added that it would submit its revised injury and dumping assessment to the interested parties.

Turkey commended Egypt's constructive approach and said that it hoped to notify soon a resolution to this dispute.

  

back to top

Panels established

DS261: Uruguay ?Tax treatment on certain products

Chile first requested a panel on 15 April 2003. Presenting its second request, Chile stated that despite Uruguay's efforts to eliminate the discrimination, changes made were only limited and partial. Chile thus requested a panel for the second time but added that it was still interested in a bilateral solution.

Uruguay regretted Chile's decision to ask for a panel instead of continuing consultations. Uruguay added that it was still ready to examine with Chile a mutually acceptable solution.

The DSB established a panel and the following Members requested to be third parties: European Communities, Mexico and the United States.
  

DS268: United States ?Sunset reviews of anti-dumping measures on oil country tubular goods from Argentina

Argentina made its first request on 15 April 2003. Reiterating its request, Argentina expressed its disappointment to have to resort to a panel but explained that this was inevitable given the two governments' different views of the Anti-Dumping Agreement obligations.

The United States commented that it continued to believe that Argentina's panel request failed to conform to the DSB requirements.

The DSB established a panel and the following countries requested to be third parties: European Communities, Japan, Korea, Mexico and Chinese Taipei.

  

back to top

Panel report adopted

DS241: Argentina ?Definitive anti-dumping duties on poultry from Brazil

Brazil welcomed the panel report which found that Argentina acted inconsistently with its obligations under the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
Argentina said that it was satisfied with the panel which ruled that certain aspects of Argentina's anti-dumping measure were inconsistent with the Anti-Dumping Agreement but not others, of particular importance to Argentina. Argentina added that, following a revision, the anti-dumping measure at stake was no longer in force.

The US commented on certain systemic points of the panel report.

The DSB adopted the report.

back to top

Procedures for developing information

DS267: United States ?Subsidies on upland cotton

Brazil complained that 60 days after the panel had been established, the representative to facilitate the information-gathering process still could not be designated. Brazil also complained about the lack of information coming from the US and called the US' absence of cooperation strikingly telling. Brazil said that it would address the implications of the US refusal to provide information to the panel.

The US noted that it was Brazil's decision to invoke the Subsidies Agreement prior to the expiration of the Peace Clause of the Agriculture Agreement. The US stated that Brazil was simply not entitled to have recourse to the Subsidies Agreement's Annex V process since the measures at issue were covered by the Peace Clause. The US added that, in the unlikely event the panel were to determine that the Peace Clause did not preclude Brazil's claims, the parties could then engage in the Annex V process.

The EC and Argentina argued that a facilitator should have been appointed. India expressed its concern about the negative impact of US cotton subsidies on other countries.

  

back to top

Other business

Concerning dispute DS238 on Definitive safeguard measures on imports of preserved peaches, Argentina announced its intention to implement the DSB rulings and recommendations and stated that it would require a reasonable period of time.

Chile commented that the only possible implementation was a removal of the safeguard measures as quickly as possible.

   back to top

Upcoming meetings

The DSB will meet on 24 June 2003.