More Press Releases  
 2005 2004 2003 2002


The following statements were made by the United States representative at the August 31, 2004 meeting of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB).

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.29 - WT/DS162/17/ADD.29)

· The United States provided an additional status report in these disputes on August 19, 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.
  • On June 30, 2004, Ambassador Zoellick wrote a letter to the leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives urging the passage of repeal legislation “at the earliest opportunity.”

· Congress has been in recess since July 23. The U.S. Administration will continue to work with Congress when it returns in September 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.22)

· The United States provided a status report in this dispute on August 19, 2004, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.

  • As noted in the report, legislation amending or repealing section 211 is pending in the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Senate held hearings on this legislation last month.

· The United States Administration will continue to work with the U.S. Congress concerning appropriate statutory measures that would 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.22)

· The United States provided a status report in this dispute on August 19, 2004, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU .

· The Administration will continue 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.

  • Following consultations with Japan, the United States proposed that the “reasonable period of time” for implementation of the remaining recommendations and rulings be extended. That proposal will be considered under the second agenda item for this meeting.

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

D. UNITED STATES – CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT OF 2000: STATUS REPORT BY THE UNITED STATES (WT/DS217/16/ADD.7 – WT/DS234/24/ADD.7)

· The United States provided a status report on August 19, 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 will continue to work with Congress to achieve further progress in resolving these disputes with the complaining parties.


Item 2. UNITED STATES – ANTI–DUMPING MEASURES ON CERTAIN HOT-ROLLED STEEL PRODUCTS FROM JAPAN

A. REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF THE REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME (WT/DS184/18)

· As mentioned under an earlier agenda item, the U.S. Administration will continue 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.

· After consultations with the Government of Japan, the United States is requesting that the “reasonable period of time” for implementation of the remaining recommendations and rulings in this dispute be modified so as to expire on July 31, 2005.

  • The United States believes that such an extension of time would promote a principal aim of the dispute settlement system, which is to provide mutually satisfactory solutions to disputes. The United States understands from Japan that it does not oppose this proposal.
  • We intend to continue discussions with Japan on implementation of the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.

Item 5. UNITED STATES – FINAL DUMPING DETERMINATION ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER FROM CANADA

A. REPORT OF THE PANEL (WT/DS268/R AND CORR.1)

  • Madam Chair, with the exception of one issue we will discuss shortly, the United States supports the conclusions of the panel and Appellate Body, a number of which we wish to highlight.
  • This was an enormously complex dispute, in which Canada asserted no fewer than 13 discrete claims concerning the initiation and conduct of an antidumping duty investigation by the U.S. Department of Commerce. Except for the issue of “zeroing,” the panel properly rejected each of those claims.
  • With respect to initiation of an investigation, the panel properly found that as long as an application for antidumping relief contains the type of information on dumping, injury, and causation identified in Article 5.2 of the Antidumping Agreement, it need not contain all of the information on these issues available to the applicant. Thus, the panel confirmed that Article 5.2 is, among other things, “intended to avoid putting an undue burden on the applicant.”
  • With respect to the scope of an antidumping investigation, the panel found that the definition of the product under investigation is up to the investigating authority. It properly rejected Canada’s argument that an authority’s definition of the product under investigation is limited by Article 2.6.
  • With respect to the requirement in Article 2.4 that an investigating authority make “due allowance” for certain differences in two transactions being compared, the panel properly confirmed that – as an initial matter – a difference must be demonstrated to affect price comparability in order for due allowance to be warranted. Here, the proponents of a due allowance failed even to make this demonstration.
  • We also note that the panel made several findings with regard to Canada’s company-specific claims. In each case, the panel concluded that Commerce’s methodology was consistent with U.S. obligations under the Antidumping Agreement. While Canada cross-appealed with respect to two of those findings, the Appellate Body correctly declined to reverse these conclusions.
  • While the United States is pleased with virtually all of the panel and Appellate Body findings in this dispute, the United States regrets the finding on whether Article 2.4.2 of the Antidumping Agreement requires an investigating authority to offset non-dumped transactions against dumped transactions in determining an aggregate margin of dumping for a producer or exporter.
  • There was a widespread view among the GATT Contracting Parties – including Canada – that such offsetting was not required in the years and decades before the WTO Agreement, and they continued in this view as WTO Members after 1995. Thus, it is surprising to find now that the Antidumping Agreement requires it. We note that one member of the original panel disagreed with this conclusion, finding that Article 2.4.2 contains no such requirement. It is silent on the question of how an aggregate margin of dumping is to be determined. The dissenting panel member stated, “If Members consider that the issue of how to aggregate the results of multiple comparisons is a lacuna that needs to be filled, then they should negotiate such rules in the appropriate forum.”
  • We agree, and regret both that Canada chose to litigate this issue despite its own on-going use of “zeroing,” and that the panel and Appellate Body agreed with Canada. In light of this, we question how Canada itself is ensuring “the conformity of its laws, regulations and administrative procedures” with its WTO obligations, as required by Article XVI:4 of the Marrakesh Agreement.
  • In sum, Madam Chair, while the United States is disappointed with the disposition of the “zeroing” issue, we are pleased that the panel and Appellate Body have confirmed that Commerce’s initiation and conduct of its Lumber antidumping investigation were, in every other respect, entirely consistent with U.S. obligations under the WTO Agreement.

OTHER BUSINESS.

A. STATEMENT BY MEXICO ON MEXICO - TELECOMMUNICATIONS (DS204)

  • The United States appreciates Mexico’s statement regarding its compliance efforts and looks forward to continuing consultations with Mexico as Mexico works to complete its implementation of the DSB’s recommendations and rulings.