Statements by the United States at the April 21, 2011 DSB Meeting

 

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.101)

• The United States provided a status report in this dispute on April 8, 2011, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.

• Legislative proposals have been introduced in the current 112th Congress that would implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.

• In the Senate, S. 603 was introduced on March 16, 2011. This bill has been referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. In the House of Representatives, H.R. 1166 was introduced on March 17, 2011. This bill has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

• The U.S. Administration will continue to work 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.101)

• The United States provided a status report in this dispute on April 8, 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.

• 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.76)

• The United States provided a status report in this dispute on April 8, 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.

 

D. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – MEASURES AFFECTING THE APPROVAL AND MARKETING OF BIOTECH PRODUCTS: STATUS REPORT BY THE EUROPEAN UNION (WT/DS291/37/ADD.39)
• The United States thanks the EU for its status report and its statement today.

• On March 28, 2011, as noted by my EU colleague, a U.S. delegation met with EU officials in Brussels to discuss delays in the EU’s approval system for biotech products and related issues. The United States believes these discussions were constructive.

• Based on these discussions, the United States is hopeful that the EU will make significant progress in the coming months with respect to its approvals of biotech products.

 

E. UNITED STATES – MEASURES RELATING TO ZEROING AND SUNSET REVIEWS: STATUS REPORT BY THE UNITED STATES (WT/DS322/36/ADD.19)

• The United States provided a status report in this dispute on April 8, 2011, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.

• As the United States explained in its status report, 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. At this time, the U.S. Department of Commerce is continuing with its ongoing work on the December proposal.

 

F. UNITED STATES – CONTINUED EXISTENCE AND APPLICATION OF ZEROING METHODOLOGY: STATUS REPORT BY THE UNITED STATES (WT/DS350/18/ADD.16)

• The United States has addressed the issue of compliance with the findings in this dispute in the status report provided on April 8, 2011, and earlier in today’s discussion of agenda item 1.E. We refer Members to that report and statement for further details.

 

G. UNITED STATES – LAWS, REGULATIONS AND METHODOLOGY FOR CALCULATING DUMPING MARGINS (“ZEROING”): STATUS REPORT BY THE UNITED STATES (WT/DS294/38/ADD.10)

• Madame Chair, the United States has addressed the issue of compliance with the findings in this dispute in the status report provided on April 8, 2011, and earlier in today’s discussion of agenda item 1.E. We refer Members to that report and statement for further details.

 

H. CHINA – MEASURES AFFECTING TRADING RIGHTS AND DISTRIBUTION SERVICES FOR CERTAIN PUBLICATIONS AND AUDIOVISUAL ENTERTAINMENT PRODUCTS: STATUS REPORT BY CHINA (WT/DS363/17/ADD.3)

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

• The United States remains concerned by the lack of progress by China in bringing its measures relating to films for theatrical release into compliance with the DSB recommendations and rulings. The United States also has significant concerns about the incomplete progress relative to China’s measures relating to audio visual home entertainment products, reading materials, and sound recordings. The United States is conferring closely with China on these matters.

• In this light, the United States and China have entered into a sequencing agreement, which will govern procedural aspects of any eventual request for a compliance proceeding under Article 21.5 of the DSU and any eventual request for authorization to suspend concessions under Article 22.6 of the DSU. That agreement has been circulated to Members in document WT/DS363/18.

 

2. UNITED STATES – DEFINITIVE ANTI DUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTIES ON CERTAIN PRODUCTS FROM CHINA

A. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DSB

• On March 25, 2011, the DSB adopted the Panel and Appellate Body reports in the dispute United States – Definitive Anti Dumping and Countervailing Duties on Certain Products from China (DS379). At the March DSB meeting, the United States and a number of other Members raised serious concerns with the Appellate Body report in this dispute. We look forward to further conversations with interested Members on the implications of that report. We do not, however, seek to engage in a further discussion of those concerns today, which we and others expressed in our statements to the DSB on March 25.

• This morning, as provided in the first sentence of Article 21.3 of the DSU, the United States wishes to state that it intends to comply in this dispute with its WTO obligations and will be considering carefully how to do so.

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

 

3. 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 previous DSB meetings, the President signed the Deficit Reduction Act into law on 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 EU and Japan, have acknowledged during previous DSB meetings that the 2006 Deficit Reduction Act does not permit the distribution of duties collected on goods entered after 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, again, that the United States has taken all actions necessary to implement the DSB’s recommendations and rulings in these disputes.

• With respect to the EU’s statement today, the United States continues to review the action by the EU. As we have observed previously, the DSB only authorized the suspension of concessions or other obligations as provided in the Award of the Arbitrator.

 

4. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – MEASURES PROHIBITING THE IMPORTATION AND MARKETING OF SEAL PRODUCTS

A. REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY NORWAY (WT/DS401/5)

• The United States noted Norway’s reference to DSU Article 9.1 and also that the EU is amenable to having a single panel. We are pleased that the parties have cooperated and reached an agreement on this issue. The United States understands, therefore, that the decision to be taken by the DSB today is to refer the matter set out by Norway in WT/DS401/5 to the panel previously established by the DSB to consider the matter raised by Canada in the DS400 dispute.

 

5. UNITED STATES – ANTI DUMPING ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS AND OTHER MEASURES RELATED TO IMPORTS OF CERTAIN ORANGE JUICE FROM BRAZIL

 

A. JOINT REQUEST BY BRAZIL AND THE UNITED STATES FOR A DECISION BY THE DSB (WT/DS382/7)

• The United States is joining Brazil in asking that the DSB agree to provide additional time for adoption or appeal of the panel report in this dispute by adopting the draft decision set forth in document WT/DS382/7.

• To facilitate its work, the Appellate Body has informally requested the parties to delay any appeal in this dispute until June. After discussions with Brazil, the United States agreed to join Brazil in making the request before the DSB today.

• We note that this is the fourth decision the DSB has been asked to take in recent months to delay a possible appeal. In taking the previous three decisions, all Members have cooperated to permit adoption or appeal to be delayed. Further, the parties to those disputes have cooperated by delaying the filing of any appeal. It should be clear, however, that the cooperation of Members in this dispute, as well as any others, is contingent on not viewing themselves as being prejudiced by that cooperation, for example, by accepting a delay while seeing another Member gain a timing or other procedural advantage through its non-cooperation.

• The draft decision would provide for DSB adoption of the Panel report by negative consensus until June 17, 2011, unless either party appeals the report.

• We appreciate the DSB’s support for the draft decision.

[Second intervention:]

• It is the U.S. turn to be puzzled by one of the preceding interventions, namely, that of the EU. The issue is really very simple. It is clear that both parties to this dispute have rights under DSU Article 17. The Appellate Body has requested the assistance of the parties and, through the draft decision put forward by the parties, the assistance of all Members, including the EU. The parties have jointly put forward a decision to the DSB today, and both parties to this dispute support the decision. I hope that sufficiently clarifies the issue.