The following statements were delivered by the United States at the Friday, October 3 Meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body.

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

A. UNITED STATES - ANTI-DUMPING ACT OF 1916: STATUS REPORT BY THE UNITED STATES (WT/DS136/14/ADD.19 - WT/DS162/17/ADD.19)

· The United States provided an additional status report in this dispute on September 19, 2003, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.

· As noted in the report, legislation repealing the 1916 Act has been introduced in both the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives.

· The U.S. Administration is continuing to work with Congress to achieve further progress in resolving this dispute with the European Communities and Japan.

· We regret that the EC has nevertheless decided to request the resumption of the arbitration in this dispute.

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

B. UNITED STATES - SECTION 211 OMNIBUS APPROPRIATIONS ACT OF 1998: STATUS REPORT BY THE UNITED STATES (WT/DS176/11/ADD.12)

· The United States provided a status report in this dispute on September 19, 2003, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.

· The United States Administration will continue to work with Congress on appropriate statutory measures to resolve this matter.

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

C. UNITED STATES - ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON CERTAIN HOT-ROLLED STEEL PRODUCTS FROM JAPAN: STATUS REPORT BY THE UNITED STATES (WT/DS184/15/ADD.12)

· The United States provided a status report in this dispute on September 19, 2003, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.

· The Administration continues to work with the U.S. Congress to address the recommendations and rulings of the DSB that were not addressed by the original deadline of November 23, 2003, and is working in support of specific legislative amendments that would do so.

Item 3. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES - PROTECTION OF TRADEMARKS AND GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS AND FOODSTUFFS

A. REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY THE UNITED STATES (WT/DS174/20)

B. REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY AUSTRALIA (WT/DS290/18)

· Mr. Chairman, as discussed at the DSB meeting held on August 29, the United States has had serious concerns for many years regarding the EC's Regulation 2081/92, which governs the protection of geographical indications for agricultural products and foodstuffs.

· As noted, a primary concern is that Regulation 2081/92 does not allow the registration of non-EC GIs unless the GI is from a country that offers GI protection that is equivalent to that of the EC. This "reciprocity requirement" appears to be inconsistent with the national treatment or MFN obligations of the TRIPS Agreement and the GATT.

· In addition, Regulation 2081/92 diminishes the value of foreign trademarks by not allowing trademark owners to assert their rights to protect their trademarks against confusing use. This appears to be inconsistent with Article 16 of the TRIPS Agreement.

· For these and other reasons discussed at the August 29 meeting, the United States again requests that the DSB establish a panel pursuant to Article 6 of the DSU with standard terms of reference to examine the matters set forth in the U.S. panel request. The United States also requests that, pursuant to Article 9.1 of the DSU, a single panel be established to examine both our complaint and that of Australia.

· Finally, we recall the EC's comments on our panel request when this item was discussed at the August 29th DSB meeting. We, consider that our request in fact complies fully with the requirements of Article 6.2 of the DSU. The EC should certainly understand the basis of our request, both from its face and from the four years of consultations we have held on these topics.

· In addition, we wish to emphasize that the United States is moving forward with this dispute because of our concerns with the EC system, not because of any link to other GI issues. The discrimination in the EC system, both against foreign GIs and trademarks, has serious commercial implications for the United States. Owners of valuable GIs in the United States, such as Idaho Potatoes and Florida Oranges, can not obtain protection under the EC system. Our trademark owners are at risk of losing valuable trademark rights.
·
· The EC should not attempt to deflect attention from the serious deficiencies in its GI system by asserting that this dispute is being brought for tactical reasons but should, instead, address our concerns by creating a nondiscriminatory, transparent GI system that protects the GIs of all WTO Members and appropriately protects trademark rights.

Item 6. MEXICO - DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON BEEF AND RICE

A. REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY THE UNITED STATES (WT/DS295/2)

· Mr. Chairman, as described in our panel request of September 19, 2003, the United States is concerned that Mexico's definitive antidumping measure on long-grain white rice from the United States, published in the Diario Oficial on June 5, 2002, is inconsistent with Mexico's obligations under the GATT 1994 and the Antidumping Agreement.

· As described in our panel request, our concerns about that measure are several. They include, for example, the manner in which Mexico conducted its dumping and injury analyses; the data it relied on in making its determinations; the manner in which Mexico applied the "facts available" to investigated exporters and to exporters that were not individually investigated; and Mexico's decision not to exclude from the measure those exporters that Mexico found were not dumping.

· The United States is also concerned that certain provisions of Mexico's Foreign Trade Act, and its Federal Code of Civil Procedure, are inconsistent with the AD Agreement and the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. These are outlined in more detail in our panel request.

· On July 31 and August 1, 2003, the United States and Mexico held consultations and discussed these matters. The consultations provided helpful clarifications, but failed to resolve many of our concerns.

· Accordingly, the United States is requesting that the DSB establish a panel to examine these matters, pursuant to Article 6 of the DSU, Article 17.4 of the AD Agreement, and Article 30 of the SCM Agreement, with standard terms of reference.