|
> Disputes in the WTO
> Find disputes cases
> Find disputes documents
> Disputes chronologically
> Disputes by subject
> Disputes by country
NOTE:
This summary has been prepared by the WTO Secretariat’s Information and
External Relations Division to help public understanding about developments
in WTO disputes. It is not a legal interpretation of the issues, and it is
not intended as a complete account of the issues. These can be found in
the reports themselves and in the minutes of the Dispute Settlement
Body’s meetings.
|
Adoption of report
DS383: United States — Anti-dumping measures on polyethylene retail
carrier bags from Thailand
In this dispute, Thailand challenged the use of
zeroing by the US in weighted-average to weighted-average price
comparisons in an anti-dumping investigation.
At today's meeting, the DSB adopted the Panel report (WT/DS383/R).
Thailand said it was looking forward to the US prompt implementation of
the panel findings within a reasonable period of no more than six months
in accordance with a procedural agreement with the US (WT/DS383/4).
The US appreciated Thailand’s cooperation during this dispute and looked
forward to continuing that cooperation going forward.
DS294: US — Laws, regulations and methodology for calculating dumping
margins (“zeroing”) — Recourse to Article 22.2 of the Dispute Settlement
Understanding
On 2 February 2010, the EU requested authorisation to impose sanctions on
the US (WT/DS294/35). On 12 February 2010, the US objected to the level of
suspension of concessions (WT/DS294/36).
At today's meeting, following the US objection, the matter was referred to
arbitration.
In this dispute, the DSB adopted the Panel and Appellate Body reports on 9
May 2006. The EC and the US agreed that the reasonable period of time to
implement the DSB recommendations would expire on 9 April 2007. A
compliance procedure was launched by the EU on 25 September 2007 and at
its meeting on 11 June 2009, the DSB adopted the Panel and Appellate Body
Reports.
At today's meeting, the EU said that nearly three years after the expiry
of the reasonable period of time for implementation, the US had failed to
implement the WTO rulings. The EU hoped that its first step toward
retaliation in the present case would lead the US to finally bring itself
into compliance. The EU added that the continued use of zeroing by the US
in its dumping calculations was having a significant adverse economic
impact on EU exporters in various sectors such as steel, ball bearings,
chemicals and pasta. The EU concluded that the US still had the
possibility to take action before countermeasures were actually applied.
Japan said that there was substantial overlap between the matter referred
to arbitration in this dispute and the one in
DS322 (in this case, Japan
had requested authorisation to suspend concession against the US:
WT/DS322/23
—
WT/DS322/24). Japan said both requests by Japan and the EU
addressed the US failure to bring into compliance the same measure:
zeroing.
The US regretted the EU decided to escalate this dispute by requesting
authorization to suspend concessions. The US strongly disagreed with the
EU’s specific proposal for the suspension of concessions and other
obligations. The US added that on 12 February 2010, it filed its objection
to the level of suspension of concessions requested by the EU
(WT/DS294/36).
Implementation
DS363: China — Measures Affecting Trading Rights and Distribution
Services for Certain Publications and Audiovisual Entertainment Products
In this dispute, the DSB adopted the Panel and Appellate Body reports on
19 January 2010. According to Article 21.3 of the Dispute Settlement
Understanding, China had to inform the DSB within 30 days of adoption of
the reports its intentions to implement the recommendations.
At today's meeting, China said it would implement the recommendations and
rulings of the DSB and would need a reasonable period of time to evaluate
options. China stood ready to discuss this matter with the US.
The US said that China’s measures imposed significant market access
barriers for importers and distributors of books, music, movies and other
products and was therefore looking forward to China's prompt
implementation. The US stood ready to discuss a reasonable period of time
with China for its implementation.
European Communities — Export subsidies: statements by Australia, Brazil
and Thailand
Australia, Brazil and Thailand expressed their concerns regarding the EU's
recent decision to authorise the export of an additional half a million
tonnes of out-of-quota sugar. All three countries were concerned that the
EU made this decision without consulting them as they were co-complainants
in the EC sugar export dispute (WT/DS265 —
WT/DS266 —
WT/DS283).
Australia said that following this decision, the EU would export almost 2
million tonnes of out-of-quota sugar which was significantly above the
EU's export subsidy quantity commitment level. Australia said that the EU
justified its action by asserting that the world price of sugar currently
exceeded its production costs. Australia added that the EU did not release
any data that would enable WTO members to make an assessment of the cost
of producing sugar in the EU.
Brazil said that its sugar exporters suffered an immediate economic
prejudice which was estimated in millions of dollars. Brazil said that
this decision would stimulate EU sugar companies to produce more in the
following years. Brazil added that the EU violated WTO disciplines and did
not provide evidence that its sugar exports no longer benefited from
subsidies.
Thailand said that this decision would encourage EU sugar producers to
export excess out-of-quota sugar which would lead to a continuous cycle of
over production and to artificially depress global prices. Thailand said
that depressed prices would detrimentally affect the livelihood of 1.5
million farmers and sugar workers, most of whom lived in lowest income
areas. Thailand was looking forward to the EU's explanation of its
measure.
The EU said that its decision to export 0.5 million tonnes of sugar was a
temporary measure. The EU said it fully respected its international
obligations and the quantities on sale were not subsidized. The EU added
that world sugar prices were currently higher than EU production costs and
that its producers have become much more competitive following the drastic
overhaul of the EU Common Market Organisation for sugar. The EU insisted
on its right to engage in international trade and was ready to provide
necessary technical information explaining its decision.
Other business back to top
Under “other business”, Colombia
made a statement regarding its implementation in the case with Panama on
Colombia’s prices and restrictions on ports of entry (WT/DS366).
In this dispute, the DSB adopted the Panel report on 20 May 2009. The
reasonable period of time for Columbia to implement the ruling would end
on 4 February 2010.
At today's meeting, Columbia informed the DSB that it had applied measures
to comply with the recommendations before the end of the reasonable period
of time. Columbia added that it would submit a status report explaining
the measures taken to comply with the ruling.
Under other business, the DSB chair made a statement on the amendments
proposed by the Appellate Body to the Working Procedures for Appellate
Review.
On 12 January 2010, the Appellate
Body informed the DSB Chair and the Director-General about three proposals
to amend the Working Procedures for Appellate Review. These proposals are
intended to enhance the efficient allocation of time during an appeal
through modification of the deadlines for written submissions, to
explicitly authorize the filing of written submissions by electronic mail,
and to add a rule on the consolidation of appellate proceedings in certain
circumstances.
At today's meeting the DSB chair announced that following its
consultations with members, they needed more time to consult with their
capitals given the complexity of the proposed amendments. The DSB chair
said that it would not be beneficial to rush the matter and added that
further informal consultations would be held before members' views were
conveyed to the Appellate Body.
Next meeting back to top
The next meeting of the DSB will be
held on 19 March 2010.
|
 RSS news feeds
> Problems viewing this page?
Please contact webmaster@wto.org giving details of the operating system and web browser you are using.
|
