U.S. Statement at DSB Meeting

October 23, 2009

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.83)

• Mr. Chairman, the United States provided a status report in this dispute on October 12, 2009, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.

• As noted in that status report, a number of legislative proposals that would implement the DSB’s recommendations and rulings in this dispute have been introduced in the current Congress, which convened in January.

• The U.S. Administration is working with Congress to implement the DSB’s recommendations and rulings.

1. SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB

B. UNITED STATES ANTI DUMPING MEASURES ON CERTAIN HOT ROLLED STEEL PRODUCTS FROM JAPAN: STATUS REPORT BY THE UNITED STATES (WT/DS184/15/ADD.83)

• The United States provided a status report in this dispute on October 12, 2009, 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.

• With respect to the recommendations and rulings of the DSB that were not already addressed by the U.S. authorities by November 23, 2002, the U.S. Administration will work with the U.S. Congress with respect to appropriate statutory measures that would resolve this matter.

1. SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB

C. UNITED STATES SECTION 110(5) OF THE US COPYRIGHT ACT: STATUS REPORT BY THE UNITED STATES (WT/DS160/24/ADD.58)

• The United States provided a status report in this dispute on October 12, 2009, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.

• The U.S. Administration will continue to confer with the European Communities, and to work closely with the U.S. Congress, in order to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution of this matter.

1. SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB

D. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES MEASURES AFFECTING THE APPROVAL AND MARKETING OF BIOTECH PRODUCTS: STATUS REPORT BY THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (WT/DS291/37/ADD.21 WT/DS293/31/ADD.21)

• The United States thanks the EC for its status report and its statement today.

• The United States recalls its discussion at the September DSB meeting of delays that are endemic in the EC system even after the EC’s scientific authority has completed an extensive and time-consuming safety assessment.

• The United States also recalls that at the September DSB meeting, the EC asserted that its regulatory procedures for biotech products continue to work as foreseen and noted that certain maize events would be subject to a vote on October 19. The EC commented on that vote in its statement again today.

• On October 19, EC bodies consisting of member State representatives did consider four of the more than 35 outstanding applications for approval of different biotech maize varieties.

• The EC’s scientific authority had issued favorable opinions for each of these four maize applications. The preparation of the scientific opinions took as long as 46 months, and during the risk assessment process, the EC scientific authority considered and addressed exhaustive comments provided by member States. After issuance of the favorable opinions, the EC Commission — albeit with questionable delays – proceeded to draft approval measures for each of the four maize varieties.

• One would expect that the next step would be four approvals in accordance with the four opinions and the Commission’s proposed approval measures – particularly since the member States participated in the preparation of the scientific opinions. But when the four applications were submitted to the EC bodies on Monday, not one of the applications received the necessary number of member State votes for approval. Instead, these applications will experience yet further delay.

• The member State voting procedure is non-transparent. The EC does not provide the applicant, the public, or other WTO Members with information on why any particular member State declined to vote in accordance with the scientific opinion. Indeed, even the positions taken by each of the member States is not set out in any Commission publication.

• We understand, however, that some of the EC member States with the largest populations, and thus with the greatest number of votes, consistently fail to vote in accordance with the scientific opinions. And, as noted, the consistent failure of the EC bodies to adopt the proposed approval measures based on the favorable scientific opinions results in additional delays.

• This is a matter of great concern to the United States. The SPS Agreement provides that approval procedures must be undertaken and completed without undue delay. The United States would recall that the DSB has found the EC to be in breach of this obligation. Votes such as the ones that took place this week do nothing to assuage our concerns.

• The United States thanks the DSB for its attention to this matter.

1. SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB

E. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES REGIME FOR THE IMPORTATION, SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF BANANAS: SECOND RECOURSE TO ARTICLE 21.5 OF THE DSU BY ECUADOR: STATUS REPORT BY THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (WT/DS27/96/ADD.9)

• Mr. Chairman, we thank the EC for its status report and statement.

• The reasonable period of time for compliance in this dispute expired more than 10 years ago, on January 1, 1999.

• While we take note of the EC’s efforts to reach agreement with interested parties to resolve the dispute, we also note that the commercial impact of the EC’s non-compliance over this very long period is undeniably large and damaging to a number of WTO Members.

• We call on the EC to resolve this dispute, and until then, we renew our request to the EC to provide a status report with respect to the U.S. dispute.

1. SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB

F. UNITED STATES LAWS, REGULATIONS AND METHODOLOGY FOR CALCULATING DUMPING MARGINS (“ZEROING”): STATUS REPORT BY THE UNITED STATES (WT/DS294/34/ADD.2)

• Mr. Chairman, the United States provided a status report in this dispute on October 12, 2009, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.

• As noted in that status report, the United States has already taken a number of steps to implement the DSB’s recommendations and rulings in this dispute. With regard to the remaining issues, including those identified in the DSB recommendations and rulings, the United States will continue to consult with interested parties.

[Second intervention:]

• As we stated previously, the United States is consulting with interested parties in order to address the findings in this dispute.

• Furthermore, the United States recognizes the difficulties raised by the Appellate Body findings on zeroing and is consulting within the government and with interested stakeholders to find an appropriate solution.

• With respect to the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in other disputes, the United States has in each case expressed its intent to comply with its obligations under the WTO Agreement. We will address the recommendations and rulings in those disputes in the DSB at the appropriate time.

1. SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB

G. UNITED STATES MEASURES RELATING TO ZEROING AND SUNSET REVIEWS: STATUS REPORT BY THE UNITED STATES (WT/DS322/36/ADD.1)

• Mr. Chairman, the United States provided a status report in this dispute on October 12, 2009, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.

• As noted in the status report, the United States has taken steps to implement the DSB’s recommendations and rulings in this dispute. With respect to the outstanding issues, the United States will continue to consult with interested parties in order to address those issues.

• Thank you.

[Second intervention:]

• We have noted Japan’s inquiry regarding the liquidation of duties for entries covered by one of the administrative reviews at issue in this dispute, and we will refer that back to capital.

2. UNITED STATES CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT OF 2000: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB

A. STATEMENTS BY THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AND JAPAN

• As the United States has explained at previous DSB meetings, the President signed the Deficit Reduction Act into law on February 8, 2006. That Act includes a provision repealing the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000. Thus, the United States has taken all actions necessary to implement the DSB’s recommendations and rulings in these disputes.

• We recall, further, that Members have acknowledged during previous DSB meetings that the 2006 Deficit Reduction Act does not permit the distribution of duties collected on goods entered after October 1, 2007.

• With respect to comments regarding further status reports in this matter, as we have already explained at previous DSB meetings, the United States fails to see what purpose would be served by further submission of status reports repeating the progress the United States made in the implementation of the DSB’s recommendations and rulings.

3. UNITED STATES CERTAIN COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELLING (COOL) REQUIREMENTS

A. REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY CANADA (WT/DS384/8)

4. UNITED STATES CERTAIN COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELLING REQUIREMENTS

A. REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY MEXICO (WT/DS386/7 and Corr.1)

• Mr. Chairman, the United States is disappointed that Canada and Mexico have chosen to move forward with their requests for panel establishment.

• WTO Members have long recognized that country of origin labeling is a legitimate policy. Indeed, that recognition predates the entry into force of the WTO Agreement. It is common for WTO Members to require that goods be labeled as to their origin.

• We are confident that our measures provide information to consumers in a manner consistent with our WTO commitments.

• For these reasons, the United States urges Canada and Mexico to reconsider their decisions to request a panel in these disputes, and we are not in a position to agree to the establishment of a panel at this time.

5. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES CERTAIN MEASURES AFFECTING POULTRY MEAT AND POULTRY MEAT PRODUCTS FROM THE UNITED STATES

A. REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY THE UNITED STATES (WT/DS389/4)

• As described in the request that is before the DSB today, the United States is concerned with restrictions that the EC imposes on the import and marketing of poultry meat and poultry meat products from the United States.

• In 2002, the United States requested the European Commission to approve four pathogen reduction treatments for use in the production of poultry intended for export to the EC.

• The EC’s own scientists have found that the importation and consumption of poultry processed with those four PRTs does not pose a risk to human health.

• Nonetheless, after more than six years, which included significant unexplained delays, the EC has not approved any of these four PRTs. Instead, it has rejected the requests for their approval.

• Adding to the U.S. concerns, the EC has never published or otherwise made available the process it follows for approving substances such as the PRTs in question.

• As outlined in our panel request, the United States considers that the EC’s ban on the import and marketing of U.S. poultry treated with these PRTs is inconsistent with several provisions of the SPS Agreement, the Agreement on Agriculture, the GATT 1994, and the TBT Agreement.

• Our concerns are not new. Significant U.S. engagement with the EC over many years has failed to result in the lifting of the EC’s ban on the import and marketing of U.S. poultry.

• Accordingly, the United States requests that the DSB establish a panel to examine this matter, with standard terms of reference.

OTHER BUSINESS: MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION REGARDING THE IMPORTATION OF HIGH QUALITY BEEF AND THE DISPUTE “EC MEASURES CONCERNING MEAT AND MEAT PRODUCTS (HORMONES)”

A. STATEMENT BY AUSTRALIA

B. STATEMENT BY NEW ZEALAND

C. STATEMENT BY ARGENTINA

D. STATEMENT BY URUGUAY

E. STATEMENT BY BRAZIL

• The United States thanks Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil, Paraguay, and the EC for their statements.

• The United States also thanks Australia for providing advance notice to the United States and the EC of its intention to make a statement under Other Business pursuant to Rule 6 of the DSB Rules of Procedure. Given the statements and the level of interest in this issue today, and as noted earlier this afternoon, it would have provided greater notice, not just to the EC and the United States, but also to the broader Membership had these items been inscribed on the agenda with 10 days notice pursuant to Rules 2 and 3 of the DSB Rules of Procedure.

• As has been noted, the United States and EC notified our Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to the WTO last month.

• As the United States stated at the June 19 DSB meeting, according to the terms of the MOU, any beef that meets the definition’s objective requirements on matters such as diet, age, and quality is eligible for the quota regardless of origin.

• In addition, it is our understanding that the EC will administer the quota consistently with WTO principles.

(end text)