U.S. Statements At the Meeting of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB)

Geneva,
November 28, 2005

Item 1.  SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB

A.  UNITED STATES – SECTION 211 OMNIBUS APPROPRIATIONS ACT OF 1998:  STATUS REPORT BY THE UNITED STATES (WT/DS176/11/ADD.37)

he United States provided a status report in this dispute on November 17, 2005, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.

As noted in the report, several legislative proposals relating to section 211 that would implement the DSB’s recommendations and rulings in this dispute have been introduced in the current Congress, both in the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives.

The Administration is working with Congress to implement the DSB’s recommendations and 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.37)

The United States provided a status report in this dispute on November 17, 2005, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.

As of November 23, 2002, the U.S. authorities had addressed the DSB’s recommendations and rulings with respect to the calculation of antidumping margins in the hot-rolled steel antidumping duty investigation at issue in this dispute.  Details are provided in the document numbered WT/DS184/15/ADD.3.

The U.S. Administration continues to support specific legislative amendments that would implement the DSB’s recommendations and rulings with respect to the U.S. antidumping duty statute, and is working with the U.S. Congress to pass these amendments.

The U.S. Administration will continue to work with Congress to enact legislation to implement the DSB’s recommendations and rulings.

E.  UNITED STATES – COUNTERVAILING MEASURES CONCERNING CERTAIN PRODUCTS FROM THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES: STATUS REPORT BY THE UNITED STATES (WT/DS212/19)

The United States provided a status report in this dispute on November 17, 2005

As noted in the report, the United States has consulted with relevant Congressional committees with regard to the implementation of the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. 

The United States will continue to take steps to implement the DSB’s recommendations and rulings, including a request from the United States Trade Representative to the Department of Commerce to conduct redeterminations of the Spanish and U.K. reviews to implement the recommendations and rulings.

[Second intervention:]

We thank the EC for its statement.

We note that the EC has asked a number of questions, and that some of those questions contain some assumptions or other statements.

We are unfortunately not in a position today to answer those questions or address those assumptions and other statements, but we will refer them all to capital for review.

Item 6.  UNITED STATES – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON OIL COUNTRY TUBULAR GOODS (OCTG) FROM MEXICO

A.  REPORT OF THE APPELLATE BODY (WT/DS282/AB/R) AND REPORT OF THE PANEL (WT/DS282/R)

We would like to begin by thanking the Appellate Body and the members of the Panel for their work in this dispute, as well as to thank the members of the Secretariat for their assistance to the Appellate Body and Panel.

We are pleased that the Appellate Body upheld the panel’s findings on likelihood of injury and the margin likely to prevail, and that the Appellate Body reversed the panel’s finding that the Sunset Policy Bulletin is not consistent with U.S. WTO obligations.

The United States commends the analyses and findings of both the Appellate Body and the Panel with respect to all injury-related issues.  In a well-reasoned analysis, the Appellate Body, like the panel, found that there is no requirement that a Member apply the provisions of Article 3 in a sunset review.  They also applied the correct standard of review in finding that the United States complied with its obligations in determining likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury.

We are also pleased that the Appellate Body reversed the panel’s finding that the Sunset Policy Bulletin is inconsistent with Article 11.3 of the Antidumping Agreement.  In contrast to the view expressed by Mexico in its statement this morning, this Appellate Body finding in fact reinforces certain core principles of the dispute settlement system: namely, the principles that a complaining party must demonstrate its case based on a careful, reasoned analysis supported by evidence, and that panel findings must have a solid factual and analytical basis. 

We heard Mexico say this morning that some inferences could be drawn from the U.S. decision not to appeal a part of the panel report.  In fact, there is no basis for Mexico to attribute any special significance to the U.S. decision not to appeal a narrow panel finding on the particular U.S. determination at issue.  The panel itself stressed that its finding was a procedural one that might not affect the outcome of the determination.  The United States hopes Mexico is not suggesting that parties must in every dispute be compelled to appeal every issue to avoid inferences of any kind.

###