Statements by the U.S. Representative at the May 19, 2004 meeting
of the WTO 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.26 - WT/DS162/17/ADD.26)
· The United States provided an additional status report
in these disputes on May 6, 2004, in accordance with Article 21.6
of the DSU.
· As noted in the report, legislation repealing the 1916
Act is pending in both the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives.
On January 29, 2004, HR 1073, which would repeal the 1916 Act,
was reported favorably out of the Committee on the Judiciary of
the U.S. House of Representatives.
· The U.S. Administration is continuing to work with Congress
to achieve further progress in resolving these disputes with the
European Communities and Japan.
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.19)
· The United States provided a status report in this dispute
on May 6, 2004, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.
· The United States Administration is continuing to work
with the U.S. Congress concerning appropriate statutory measures
that would resolve this matter.
· In this connection, we wish to report that legislation
was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives on April 28,
2004, and in the U.S. Senate on April 29, 2004, to amend section
211 to address the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this
dispute. Legislation repealing section 211 is already pending
in both Houses of Congress.
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.19)
· The United States provided a status report in this dispute
on May 6, 2004, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.
· The Administration is continuing to work with the U.S.
Congress with respect to the recommendations and rulings of the
DSB that were not addressed by November 23, 2002.
Item 1. SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS
ADOPTED BY THE DSB
E. UNITED STATES - CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET
ACT OF 2000: STATUS REPORT BY THE UNITED STATES (WT/DS217/16/ADD.4
- WT/DS234/24/ADD.4)
The United States provided a status report in this dispute on
May 6, 2004, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.
As noted in the report, on June 19, 2003, legislation to bring
the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act into conformity with
U.S. WTO obligations was introduced in the U.S. Senate (S. 1299).
On March 10, 2004, legislation repealing the CDSOA was introduced
in the U.S. House of Representatives (H.R. 3933).
In addition, on February 2, 2004, the U.S. Administration once
again proposed repeal of the CDSOA, in its budget proposal for
fiscal year 2005.
The U.S. Administration is continuing to work with Congress to
achieve further progress in resolving these disputes with the
complaining parties.
Item 2. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DSB
B. UNITED STATES - INVESTIGATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL
TRADE COMMISSION IN SOFTWOOD LUMBER FROM CANADA
The United States intends to implement the recommendations and
rulings of the DSB in a manner that respects U.S. WTO obligations,
and we have begun to evaluate options for doing so.
The United States will need a reasonable period of time in which
to implement.
We stand ready to consult with Canada regarding a reasonable period
of time.
Item 4. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE WORKING PROCEDURES
FOR APPELLATE REVIEW (WT/AB/WP/8)
Madame Chair, the United States would like to thank you and
the Appellate Body for providing this consultation process in
connection with the Appellate Body's proposed amendments to its
working procedures. This morning, the United States would like
to share with you and with Members some of our observations about
the proposed amendments.
We also would welcome the opportunity to express our views on
the proposed amendments at an additional, informal session of
the DSB. We would expect to have additional comments at such an
informal session.
At this point, I would like to express the following thoughts.
First, the United States appreciates the need to update the procedures
on setting the date of the oral hearing, and wonders if it would
not also be useful as part of this exercise to provide that the
Appellate Body would very briefly consult with the parties to
the appeal before finalizing the date.
Second, in connection with the calculation of time limits in the
DSU, we appreciate the significant efforts that the Appellate
Body and the Secretariat have made over the years to meet DSU
time frames, as well as the difficulties this has posed, particularly
in December and August. While the Appellate Body's proposed approach
of tolling deadlines during these periods is not unreasonable,
the language of the DSU does not, as currently written, permit
this. This is an item that could be taken up in the DSU negotiations
if Members wished to amend the time frames.
Third, we also wish to comment on the proposed amendments concerning
notices of appeal. Madame Chair, these proposals have provided
a useful opportunity to reexamine the role of these notices. Appellees
have increasingly been seeking to challenge the sufficiency of
the notice of appeal, based on the criteria set forth in the current
working procedures, as well as the Appellate Body's subsequent
explanations of those criteria.
Given the current situation, as well as ambiguities in the current
working procedures, the Appellate Body is proposing amendments
which would add additional requirements, and, in the interest
of balance, require a parallel notice for cross appeals. The proposal
would also add a process for amending the notice, and modify the
briefing schedule to accommodate other changes.
The United States appreciates that it is the intention of the
Appellate Body to introduce greater predictability and fairness
through its proposed amendments. However, we wonder if the net
result of the proposed modifications would be to make the situation
even more complicated and difficult and take away from the time
that can be devoted to considering the important issues on appeal
on their merits. We wonder if it would not be possible to devise
a different approach to address the same concerns that will reduce
rather than increase procedural distractions. Perhaps such an
approach could build upon some of the Appellate Body's ideas regarding
the timetable for appeals.
The DSU only provides that a Member wishing to appeal must notify
the DSB that it intends to do so. There are no other requirements
for these notifications, and, apart from the requirement in the
DSU that appeals be limited to issues of law and legal interpretations
in the panel report, the DSU does not limit the scope of appeal.
Accordingly, we would be willing to work with the Appellate Body
and Members to find a way to simplify the process and allow the
Appellate Body and the parties to devote more of the very limited
time to the issues on appeal and spend less on procedural distractions.
In conclusion, Madame Chair, the United States looks forward to
further discussion of these issues among Members, and to dialogue
with the Appellate Body through this process.
