Statements by the United States at the March 19, 2010 DSB Meeting

WTO-DSB

1. ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON

• The United States would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Ambassador Agah on his election, and to extend our welcome to him as he assumes the chairmanship of the DSB. We very much look forward to working with him over what will undoubtedly be a very full and interesting year.

• We also would like to thank Ambassador Gero for his many contributions to the work of the DSB during this past year. We very much look forward to continuing to work with him in his new capacity as chairman of the General Council.

2. 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.88)

• Mr. Chairman, the United States provided a status report in this dispute on March 8, 2010, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.

• As has been noted, a number of legislative proposals that would implement the DSB’s recommendations and rulings in this dispute were introduced in the First Session of the current (111th) U.S. Congress. The Second Session of the 111th Congress began in January.

• The Committee on the Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives held a hearing on certain of these proposals on March 3, 2010.

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

[Second intervention:]

• In response to the statements by some Members that this dispute raises concerns for the dispute settlement system, as Members well know, the United States does not believe that those concerns are well-founded. In the interest of time, the United States refers Members to past U.S. statements on this matter, including in document WT/DSB/M/273 at paragraph 15.

B. UNITED STATES – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON CERTAIN HOT-ROLLED STEEL PRODUCTS FROM JAPAN: STATUS REPORT BY THE UNITED STATES (WT/DS184/15/ADD.88)

• The United States provided a status report in this dispute on March 8, 2010, 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, the U.S. Administration will work with the U.S. Congress with respect to appropriate statutory measures that would resolve this matter.

C. UNITED STATES – SECTION 110(5) OF THE US COPYRIGHT ACT: STATUS REPORT BY THE UNITED STATES (WT/DS160/24/ADD.63)

• The United States provided a status report in this dispute on March 8, 2010, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.

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

D. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – MEASURES AFFECTING THE APPROVAL AND MARKETING OF BIOTECH PRODUCTS: STATUS REPORT BY THE EUROPEAN UNION (WT/DS291/37/ADD.26 – WT/DS293/31/ADD.26)

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

• The United States recalls its concerns with delays in the operation of the EU approval system for biotech products. These delays have resulted in a backlog of dozens of pending applications. As a consequence of the delays and the resulting backlog, products of agricultural biotechnology widely consumed and grown in the United States and other countries may not be imported or used in the EU.

• We also recall our concern that individual EU member States maintain and continue to adopt bans on some of the biotech products that have been approved at the EU level.

• At the February meeting of the DSB, the United States expressed the hope that the new European Commission – which had just taken office – would take steps toward addressing the EU’s ongoing problems with biotech approvals.

• As mentioned by the EU, earlier this month, the new Commission approved five longpending biotech applications that previously had received positive EU safety assessments, including an application that was first filed in 1996.

• Although a substantial backlog of pending applications remains, the United States is encouraged by these developments. We look forward to continuing progress in coming months.

• We have also taken note of the announcement by the EU and Argentina that these two parties have reached an agreement under which the two parties will continue with a dialog on outstanding issues related to biotech approvals as well as a mutually agreed solution to their dispute.

• Members will recall that there are important differences between the DSB recommendations and rulings in DS291 – the dispute between the EU and the United States – and the recommendations and rulings in DS293, that is, Argentina’s dispute.

• In particular, the recommendations and rulings in the U.S. dispute addressed the EU’s general moratorium on biotech approvals, while those in Argentina’s dispute do not.

Also, as compared to Argentina’s dispute, the recommendations and rulings in the U.S. dispute cover a wider range of biotech products that have been subject to undue delay, as well as a wider range of products subject to EU member State bans despite EU-wide approvals.

• Unfortunately, there is yet to be a resolution of the broader range of biotech approval issues covered by the dispute between the United Sates and the EU. To the contrary, as we have noted in the past, U.S. producers continue to be shut out of what historically had been major U.S. export markets for agricultural products.

E. UNITED STATES – MEASURES RELATING TO ZEROING AND SUNSET REVIEWS: STATUS REPORT BY THE UNITED STATES (WT/DS322/36/ADD.6)

• Mr. Chairman, the United States provided a status report in this dispute on March 8, 2010, 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.

F. UNITED STATES – CONTINUED EXISTENCE AND APPLICATION OF ZEROING METHODOLOGY: STATUS REPORT BY THE UNITED STATES (WT/DS350/18/ADD.3)

• Mr. Chairman, the United States provided a status report in this dispute on March 8, 2010, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.

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

[Second intervention:]

• The United States would like to comment on two issues raised by the EU.

• First, with respect to the section 129 determination, on March 12, 2010, the U.S. Department of Commerce issued the final results under section 129(b) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act with respect to the four determinations in the original investigations. The United States in now consulting within the government on next steps under section 129(b).

• There was no statement in the section 129 determination that the United States would not comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. To the contrary, the United States has stated repeatedly to the DSB that it intends to comply with the DSB’s recommendations and rulings. The section 129 determination goes to implementation on one part of the DSB’s recommendations and rulings, on investigations.

• Second, with regard to the EU comment on status reports in DS294, that issue is not relevant to this agenda item, which deals with a different dispute, DS350. If the EU would like to take that issue up bilaterally, the United States would of course be willing to do so.

• As part of any such bilateral discussion, we would be interested in hearing the EU’s reflections on its own approach in the original EC – Hormones dispute. There, when the EC objected to the U.S. and Canadian requests for authorization to suspend concessions, the EC ceased providing status reports.

G. CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING THE PROTECTION AND ENFORCEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS: STATUS REPORT BY CHINA (WT/DS362/14/ADD.2)

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

• Members will recall that tomorrow, March 20, is the expiration of the reasonable period of time for China to comply in this dispute.

• While China has stated that it has implemented the recommendations and rulings of the DSB with respect to the Copyright Law, we are not in a position to share China’s assessment at this time. We look forward to further discussions with China to understand the basis for its claim.

• With respect to China’s efforts to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB with respect to its customs regime, we do not understand China to have claimed that it has implemented those recommendations and rulings, including in its statement today.

We would welcome receiving further information from China, including bilaterally, on its timeline for implementation, given that the RPT expires tomorrow.

• Further, we would appreciate China either providing official copies of the amendments to the Copyright Law and Customs regulations, or directing us to the appropriate Chinese government website where they are or will be posted.

• We also recall in this connection China’s commitment in its Accession Protocol to make available to WTO Members translations into one or more of the official languages of the WTO all laws, regulations and other measures pertaining to or affecting TRIPS, and to the maximum extent possible to make such laws, regulations and other measures available before they are implemented or enforced. We therefore would also appreciate receiving translations of the amendments to the Copyright Law and Customs regulations into English, if possible.

3. UNITED STATES – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON POLYETHYLENE RETAIL CARRIER BAGS FROM THAILAND

A. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DSB

• The United States intends to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this dispute in a manner that respects U.S. WTO obligations.

• The United States will need a reasonable period of time in which to implement.

• In our procedural agreement, which has been circulated to Members in document WT/DS383/4, the United States and Thailand provisionally agreed that the reasonable period of time in this dispute would be six months from the date of adoption of this report. We hope to notify the DSB of our RPT agreement very soon.

• We appreciate Thailand’s cooperation during this dispute and look forward to continuing to work with them in that constructive spirit.

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

A. STATEMENTS BY THE EUROPEAN UNION AND JAPAN

• As the United States has already explained at numerous 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, furthermore, that Members, including the EU and Japan, have previously acknowledged during other DSB meetings that the 2006 Deficit Reduction Act does not permit the distribution of duties collected on goods entered after October 1, 2007, some two-and-a-half years ago.

• We therefore do not understand the purpose for which the EU and Japan have inscribed this item today.

• 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, again, that the United States has taken all actions necessary to implement the DSB’s recommendations and rulings in these disputes.