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.99)
• Mr. Chairman, the United States provided a status report in this dispute on February 11, 2011, 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 111th Congress.
• The U.S. Administration will continue to work 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.99)
• The United States provided a status report in this dispute on February 11, 2011, 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.
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.74)
• The United States provided a status report in this dispute on February 11, 2011, 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.
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 UNION (WT/DS291/37/ADD.36)
• The United States thanks the EU for its status report and its statement today.
• At the January meeting of the DSB, the United States noted that since July 2010, the EU had not approved any of the dozens of pending biotech product applications.
• We also noted that in early February, the EU regulatory committee with the responsibility for approving biotech products was scheduled to meet to consider four biotech product applications. Each of the products had received positive safety assessments from the EU’s own scientific authority. The four products included two varieties of maize grown in the United States.
• The regulatory committee did meet earlier this month to consider the four products. However, the committee failed to approve any of these products, despite the positive scientific opinions. The United States understands that the majority of the EU member-State representatives on the committee were in favor of approval. However, and unfortunately, the number of votes was not sufficient to reach the necessary “qualified majority” under EU rules.
• As a result, these pending applications will face further delays in approval.
• The United States would emphasize that such delays have real and substantial consequences in terms of blocking trade in biotech products.
• The United States looks forward to the EU taking steps to address this type of inaction by the regulatory committee that has the responsibility for biotech products.
1. SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB
E. UNITED STATES – MEASURES RELATING TO ZEROING AND SUNSET REVIEWS: STATUS REPORT BY THE UNITED STATES (WT/DS322/36/ADD.17)
• Mr. Chairman, the United States provided a status report in this dispute on February 11, 2011, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.
• As the United States explained in its status report and at the January DSB meeting, in December 2010 the U.S. Department of Commerce announced a proposal to change the calculation of weighted average dumping margins and assessment rates in certain antidumping proceedings.
• Details of the proposal were published in the Federal Register. As explained in that notice, the proposal required a period for public comment, and will involve consultations with appropriate committees in the U.S. Congress.
• At this time, the U.S. Department of Commerce is continuing with its ongoing work on the December proposal.
• Because of our concerns about the findings regarding zeroing in this and other disputes, responding to those findings has presented substantial challenges for the United States and required significant resources. The proposal reflects that effort, and addresses adverse findings on zeroing in reviews, sunset reviews, and transaction-to-transaction comparisons in investigations.
[Second intervention:]
• We take note of Japan’s comments and will refer those to capital.
• With respect to the December 2010 U.S. proposal, we would like to reiterate that the proposal is not final, and we are reviewing the comments that we have received.
• We will also continue to work with interested parties, including Japan, on a solution to this dispute as we move forward with this very challenging domestic implementation process.
1. SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB
F. UNITED STATES CONTINUED EXISTENCE AND APPLICATION OF ZEROING METHODOLOGY: STATUS REPORT BY THE UNITED STATES (WT/DS350/18/ADD.14)
• Mr. Chairman, the United States has addressed the issue of compliance with the findings in this dispute in the status report provided on February 11, 2011, and earlier in today’s discussion of agenda item 1.E. We therefore would refer Members to that statement for further details.
[Second intervention:]
• A number of substantive issues were raised in the preceding interventions. We look forward to receiving those statements and transmitting those comments to capital.
• At this time, the United States would like to react to two issues in the EU intervention.
• First, we think we understood the EU to say that it prefers to make DSB statements on this issue rather than other communications. Every WTO Member has the right to make a DSB statement – there is no question about that. But it is also clear that the resolution of a dispute, especially one as politically difficult as this dispute, will only be found through sustained bilateral engagement, and not through DSB statements.
• In this respect, the United States welcomes the bilateral contacts we have had with several Members seeking to discuss this issue and would welcome further constructive engagement by the EU on this issue.
• Second, the United States takes note of the EU’s very brief reference to Bananas. Members will recall that last month the United States asked if the EU’s assertions that all duties collected since the end of the reasonable period of time must be refunded meant that the EU had changed its position and whether it had therefore refunded duties in Bananas back to the end of the reasonable period of time in 1999.
• The EU has not addressed that issue today. I think that means that one can reasonably infer that the EU has not changed its position and has not refunded those duties. We appreciate the clarification, even if expressed very economically.
• Finally, as stated under the previous subitem, the United States will continue to work with interested parties, including the EU, on a solution to this dispute as we move forward with what we have described as a very challenging domestic implementation process.
1. SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB
G. UNITED STATES – LAWS, REGULATIONS AND METHODOLOGY FOR CALCULATING DUMPING MARGINS (“ZEROING”): STATUS REPORT BY THE UNITED STATES (WT/DS294/38/ADD.8)
• Mr. Chairman, the United States has addressed the issue of compliance with the findings in this dispute in the status report provided on February 11, 2011, and earlier in today’s discussion of agenda items 1.E and 1.F. We refer Members to those statements for further details.
1. SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB
H. CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS: STATUS REPORT BY CHINA (WT/DS363/17/ADD.1)
• The United States thanks China for its status report and its statement today.
• We look forward to China’s implementation of the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in connection with this matter by the agreed-upon deadline of March 19, 2011.
• We understand that draft revisions were published for certain of the measures at issue. We hope that China issues draft revisions for the remaining measures promptly in order to ensure that the deadline for implementation is met.
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 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 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.
• 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.
5. CHINA – CERTAIN MEASURES AFFECTING ELECTRONIC PAYMENT SERVICES
A. REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY THE UNITED STATES (WT/DS413/2)
• For several years the United States has been concerned about certain measures maintained by China affecting suppliers of electronic payment services.
• Electronic payment services form the essential architecture for the many millions of payment card transactions that occur every day around the world. These vital services enable and manage the transfer of funds to permit cardholders to pay merchants supplying goods and services. Hundreds of billions of dollars worth of electronic payment transactions were processed in China in 2010.
• In the financial services sector, as set out in China’s services Schedule, China undertook both market access and national treatment commitments with respect to these services. Members had every reason to expect to be able to compete to provide these services to Chinese businesses and consumers.
• However, despite its GATS commitments, China imposes market access restrictions and requirements on service suppliers of other Members seeking to supply electronic payment services in China.
• Many of these restrictions serve to protect the monopoly position of a single Chinese entity, known as China UnionPay, and over time China’s measures have increased the restrictions on foreign suppliers. The restrictions include, for example, the following:
• China UnionPay is the only entity that China permits to supply electronic payment services for payment card transactions denominated and paid in renminbi in China.
• China requires that all payment cards issued in China capable of being used for transactions denominated and paid in renminbi, including dual-currency cards, must bear the China UnionPay logo.
• China requires that all inter-bank transactions involving payment cards be handled through China UnionPay.
• China prohibits the use of non-China UnionPay payment cards for cross-region or inter-bank transactions.
• The United States considers that these and other measures identified in the U.S. panel request are inconsistent with China’s obligations under the GATS.
• In particular, China’s measures appear to breach its obligation under GATS Article XVI to accord services and services suppliers of any other Member treatment no less favorable than that provided for in China’s Schedule.
• And these measures also appear to breach China’s obligations under GATS Article XVII to accord to services and service suppliers of any other Member treatment no less favorable than that it accords to its own like services and service suppliers.
• Accordingly, the United States requests that the DSB establish a panel to examine the matter set out in our panel request, with standard terms of reference.
6. CHINA – COUNTERVAILING AND ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON GRAIN ORIENTED FLAT-ROLLED ELECTRICAL STEEL FROM THE UNITED STATES
A. REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY THE UNITED STATES (WT/DS414/2)
• China has imposed antidumping and countervailing duties on grain-oriented electrical steel, known by the acronym GOES, from the United States.
• China’s dumping and subsidy determinations in the GOES investigation appear to breach a number of its obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, the Antidumping Agreement, and the Subsidies Agreement.
• The apparent inconsistencies are set out in detail in the U.S. request for the establishment of a panel.
• Our concerns relate to every phase of China’s investigation.
• In short, we believe that there were profound procedural and substantive deficiencies in the investigation, and these make the determinations unsustainable under WTO rules.
• Accordingly, the United States requests that the DSB establish a panel to examine the matter set out in the U.S. panel request, with standard terms of reference.
8. UNITED STATES – USE OF ZEROING IN ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES INVOLVING PRODUCTS FROM KOREA
A. REPORT OF THE PANEL (WT/DS402/R)
• Mr. Chairman, we would also like to begin by thanking thank the members of the Panel and the Secretariat for their work on this dispute.
• As we have indicated in our statements on zeroing in the past, our concerns with findings on the topic have been principally directed at those findings relating to zeroing outside the context of average to average comparisons in investigations.
• With regard to zeroing in the context of average to average comparisons in investigations, the U.S. Department of Commerce announced years ago that it would discontinue zeroing in this context as a result of earlier DSB recommendations and rulings.
10. ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON
• The United States would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Ambassador Johansen on her election and to extend our welcome to her as she assumes the chairmanship of the DSB. We are looking forward to working with her over the coming year.
• We also would like to thank Ambassador Agah for his many contributions to the work of the DSB during this past year.