|
> Disputes in the WTO
> Find disputes
cases
> Find disputes
documents
> Disputes chronologically
> Disputes by subject
> Disputes by country
SEE ALSO:
> Press
releases
> News
archives
> Pascal
Lamy’s speeches
NOTE:
This summary has been prepared by the WTO Secretariat’s Information and
Media Relations Division to help public understanding about developments
in WTO disputes. It is not a legal interpretation of the issues, and it is
not intended as a complete account of the issues. These can be found in
the reports themselves and in the minutes of the Dispute Settlement
Body’s meetings.
|
DS291,
DS292, &
DS293: EC — Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech
products
The European Communities reported that they had made good progress in
technical discussions with the three complainants (US, Canada & Argentina)
to resolve all their relevant biotech-related issues. In recognition of the
EC's efforts, Argentina and Canada had agreed to an extension of the
reasonable period of time (RPT) for implementation of the DSB's rulings,
respectively until 11 June 2008 (WT/DS293/32)
and 30 June 2008 (WT/DS292/33).
The EC and the US had also concluded a sequencing agreement (WT/DS291/38),
under which recourse would first be made to DSU Article 21.5 (the compliance
review process). The EC said that since the Panel was established in August
2003, 17 applications had been approved. In 2007, approval was given for 7
new “GM” products and it was expected that approval would soon be given for
4 new products. Given the sensitivities surrounding GM products, the EC was
convinced that dialogue was the appropriate way forward and remained open to
continuing discussions with the complainants.
The US welcomed the report by the EC and noted that the EC had still not
brought its measures into conformity with its WTO obligations. The US
confirmed that a sequencing agreement had been reached with the EC and that
further discussions were expected to resolve the outstanding issues. The US
had requested authorization on 17 January 2008 under Article 22.2 of the DSU
to impose sanctions on the EC, but in line with the sequencing agreement,
the request had been referred to arbitration. However, the parties had
jointly requested the arbitrator to suspend its work pending the outcome of
the compliance proceedings under Article 21.5 of the DSU. (See communication
from the arbitrator
WT/DS291/42, dated 19 February 2008.)
The US said that, while some limited progress had been made in the granting
of approvals since 1999 when the moratorium was adopted, there were over 40
biotech applications still awaiting approval, including many currently
approved and marketed in major world markets, and including one which was
filed over ten years ago. The US was also concerned that some of the product
bans implemented by certain EC member states were still in force, even
though they had been found to be inconsistent with the EC's SPS obligations.
What was worrying was that additional EC member states had adopted the same
bans, said the US. Equally disappointing, in the view of the US, was the
announcement by France on 7 February 2008 that it would be extending a ban
on the only biotech variety currently grown commercially in the EC.
According to the US, such actions were clearly not conducive to resolving
the dispute. The US looked forward to continuing its dialogue with the EC
and hoped that the EC would take the necessary steps to resolve this dispute
and obviate the need for imposition of retaliatory measures by the US.
Argentina and Canada confirmed that progress had been made in their
technical discussions with the EC and had agreed to an extension of the
reasonable period of time so as to address the outstanding issues.
The EC responded to the statement by the US by saying that the EC had acted
upon all the various national measures covered by the Panel Report. With the
exception of the Austrian measure, almost all the measures had become
obsolete as a result of subsequent developments, including the lifting of
the ban on the cultivation of MON810 by the German authorities. The EC
Commission was currently examining the scientific evidence furnished by
Austria to determine its compliance with the relevant EC guidelines and
would also be examining the recent safeguard measure imposed by France.
DS322: US — Measures relating to zeroing and sunset reviews
Japan had requested this item on the agenda as part of the surveillance
provision of DSU Article 21.6. Japan said that Japan did not share the view
of the US as expressed in its status report and at the DSB meeting on 21
January, that by ceasing to perform average-to-average comparisons in
antidumping investigations without offsets as from 22 February 2007, the US
had eliminated the single measure challenged by Japan and found to be
inconsistent with the Antidumping Agreement “as such” by the Appellate Body.
Japan maintained that the DSB required the US to stop using the zeroing
methodology in other situations as well. Japan also disagreed with the
assertion of the US that the administrative reviews challenged 'as applied'
had been superseded by subsequent reviews (11 periodic reviews) and as such
no action was required on the part of the US to comply with the DSB's
rulings. According to Japan, it was uncertain whether the status report by
the US also covered the two sunset reviews, which Japan challenged 'as
applied' in this dispute and were found by the Appellate Body to be
WTO-inconsistent given the use of zeroing in the calculation of the dumping
margins. Given the disagreement between the parties on whether compliance
had taken place, Japan intended to initiate compliance proceedings under
Article 21.5 of the DSU and also request the suspension of the arbitration
process under DSU Article 22.6 initiated at the DSB meeting on 21 January
pending the outcome of the compliance proceedings. To that end, Japan would
explore the possibility of concluding a sequencing agreement with the US.
The EC said that it was also waiting for the US to comply with the DSB's
rulings in a case initiated by it against the zeroing methodology (WT/DS294).
It had also initiated a new dispute as a result of the continued application
of zeroing by the US (WT/DS350).
The EC said that contrary to the claim by the US that the issue of zeroing
had not been settled at the WTO, all issues of law had been extensively
pleaded and analysed and there was no doubt that the practice was
inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the Anti-dumping Agreement
which required a fair comparison to be made between export prices and normal
value. Since the first case was brought against the EC in 1998, 12 disputes
had been initiated against the use of zeroing by the US whether as the
unique subject of a dispute or as part of a wider dispute. According to the
EC, the fact that the US was seeking changes to current WTO obligations was
not an excuse for not implementing the DSB's rulings. It was the expectation
of the EC that the US would finally accept the DSB's rulings and put an end
to this illegal practice.
In response to the EC statement, the US referred to its previous statements
on this issue. In response to Japan's statement, the US said that it would
be willing to explore the possibility of concluding a procedural agreement
with Japan regarding the sequencing of proceedings under Article 21.5 and
22.6 of the DSU. With respect to the sunset review regarding
corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products, the US had conducted a
review and published a determination on 14 February 2007 revoking the
anti-dumping order effective 15 December 2005. Regarding the review
involving anti-friction bearings, the US had conducted a review and
published a determination on 15 September 2006 continuing the anti-dumping
order.
Election of H.E. Mr. Mario Matus of
Chile as the new Chairperson of the DSB back to top
The DSB elected by acclamation Ambassador Mario Matus of Chile as its next
Chairman. The outgoing Chairman, Mr. Bruce Gosper of Australia, thanked
delegations for their support and professionalism during his tenure. Several
delegations thanked Mr. Gosper for his great skill and diligence in chairing
the DSB, particularly the meticulous way in which he handled the recent
Appellate Body selection process and wished him well in his new job as the
Chairman of the General Council. They also welcomed the incoming Chairman
and pledged to work closely with him during his tenure.
Next
meeting back to top
The next regular meeting of the DSB
is scheduled for 14 March 2008.
|
> Problems viewing this page?
Please contact webmaster@wto.org giving details of the operating system and web browser you are using.
|
