Flag

An official website of the United States government

Statement by the United States at the December 17, 2010 DSB Meeting.
By
12 MINUTE READ
December 20, 2010

Dispute Settlement Body Logo1. 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.

Mr. Chairman, the United States provided a status report in this dispute on December 6, 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) Congress.  The Second Session of the 111th Congress began in January.
  • The Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives held a hearing on certain of these proposals earlier this year.  In addition, the U.S. Administration is working with Congress to implement the DSB’s recommendations and rulings.

B.        UNITED STATES ? ANTI?DUMPING MEASURES ON CERTAIN HOT?ROLLED STEEL PRODUCTS FROM JAPAN:  STATUS REPORT BY THE UNITED STATES (WT/DS184/15/ADD.97)

The United States provided a status report in this dispute on December 6, 2010, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.

  • As of November 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.72)

  • The United States provided a status report in this dispute on December 6, 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.35)

  • The United States thanks the EU for its status report and its statement today.
  • The United States is growing increasingly concerned with the current operation of the EU’s regulatory system for biotech products.
  • At this meeting, the United States would like to highlight the fact that since August of this year, the EU has not approved even a single one of the dozens of pending biotech product applications.
  • This absence of approvals over the last several months appears to be unwarranted, given that a number of the pending applications have received positive opinions from the EU’s scientific food safety authority, and simply need to be allowed to proceed through the remaining steps in the EU process.  Several of these applications are far behind the EU’s own time frames for decision-making on biotech products.
  • The United States would also emphasize that these delays result in substantial barriers to international trade in biotech products.
  • The United States would urge the EU to address the ongoing problems in the operation of its approval system for biotech products.

E.         UNITED STATES ? MEASURES RELATING TO ZEROING AND SUNSET REVIEWS:  STATUS REPORT BY THE UNITED STATES (WT/DS322/36/ADD.15)

  • Mr. Chairman, the United States provided a status report in this dispute on December 6, 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.
  • As Members are aware, Japan requested authorization from the DSB to suspend concessions or other obligations in this dispute, and the United States objected to Japan’s request.  Therefore, pursuant to Article 22.6 of the DSU, the matter was referred to arbitration.
  • In response to a joint request of the United States and Japan, on December 13th the Arbitrator issued a communication stating that it has decided to suspend its work.  The communication of the Arbitrator has been circulated to the DSB as document WT/DS322/38.

F.         UNITED STATES ? CONTINUED EXISTENCE AND APPLICATION OF ZEROING METHODOLOGY:  STATUS REPORT BY THE UNITED STATES (WT/DS350/18/ADD.12)

  • Mr. Chairman, the United States provided a status report in this dispute on December 6, 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.

G.        UNITED STATES ? LAWS, REGULATIONS AND METHODOLOGY FOR CALCULATING DUMPING MARGINS (“ZEROING”):  STATUS REPORT BY THE UNITED STATES (WT/DS294/38/ADD.6)

  • Mr. Chairman, the United States provided a status report in this dispute on December 6, 2010, 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, and the United States will continue to consult with interested parties with regard to the remaining issues.

2.         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 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, furthermore, 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.

4.         AUSTRALIA ? MEASURES AFFECTING THE IMPORTATION OF APPLES FROM NEW ZEALAND

A.        REPORT OF THE APPELLATE BODY (WT/DS367/AB/R) AND REPORT OF THE PANEL (WT/DS367/R)

  • The United States followed this dispute very closely as a third party.  As Members are aware, the United States previously brought a WTO dispute (DS245) relating to apple import restrictions adopted by a Member other than Australia.  The United States also has an application pending before Australia to allow market access for U.S. apples.
  • The key finding in this dispute is that Australia’s measures restricting imports of apples are inconsistent with Australia’s obligations under Articles 2.2, 5.1 and 5.2 of the SPS Agreement.
  • The United States appreciates the comprehensive and thoughtful analysis of the Panel and Appellate Body in making these findings.
  • The United States also notes that the Appellate Body did not uphold the Panel’s findings under Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement, including the finding that a limitation of apple imports to mature symptomless apples would achieve Australia’s appropriate level of protection with regard to fire blight.
  • With regard to this finding, the United States would emphasize that the Appellate Body did not reach the merits of the issue.  Rather, the Appellate Body found that the Panel had adopted an improper approach to its Article 5.6 analysis, and that the Panel’s findings were not sufficiently detailed to permit the Appellate Body to complete the Article 5.6 analysis.
  • Based on a review of the scientific evidence, as well as the findings by this Panel and by the panel in DS245, it appears that a measure restricting imports to mature symptomless apples would in fact meet Australia’s appropriate level of protection.
  • Finally, as a technical note, the United States notes that the Appellate Body stated (in paragraph 170 of its report) that a “unique” feature of the SPS Agreement is that it defines the measures that are subject to its disciplines.  However, there are other covered agreements that also define the measures subject to their disciplines.
  • The United States looks forward to implementation by Australia of the DSB’s recommendations and rulings.

###

Trade