ࡱ> }~q bjbjt+t+  AA!]8($hC04"2222rl89C;C;C;C;C;C;CDF~;C-H22HH;C22@Hj229CH9C#.Q9 9C2p% 8B@13 July 2001 Overview of the State-of-play of ϲʹ Disputes Note: this summary has been prepared by the secretariat under its own responsibility. the summary is forgeneral information only and is not intended to affect the rights andobligationsofmembers. NEW DEVELOPMENTS SINCE LAST UPDATE This Overview updates the Overview dated 2 May 2001. New developments are reflected in paragraphs: I(7) EC Bananas (DS27) notification of Understandings on Bananas between the EC and the US and between the EC and Ecuador I(16) US Shrimp (DS58) circulation of panel report pursuant to Article 21.5 DSU I(26a) Canada Dairy (DS103) (US) circulation of panel report pursuant to Article 21.5 DSU I(26b) Canada Dairy (DS103) (NZ) circulation of panel report pursuant to Article 21.5 DSU I(31) Mexico Corn Syrup (HFCS) (DS132) circulation of panel report pursuant to Article 21.5 DSU I(43) Argentina Bovine Hides (DS155) request for arbitration pursuant to Article 21.3(c) I(45) Thailand H-Beams (DS122) notification of agreement under Article 21.3(b) DSU II(9a) US Lamb (New Zealand) (DS177) adoption of panel and Appellate Body reports II(9b) US Lamb (Autralia) (DS178) - adoption of panel and Appellate Body reports IV(2) US Cotton Yarn (DS192) circulation of panel report and notification of appeal V(1) US Export Restraints as Subsidies (DS194) circulation of panel report VI(12) Egypt Steel Rebar (DS211) establishment of a panel VI(13) Peru Cigarettes (DS227) establishment of a panel VII(69) US Steel Plate (DS206) - request for establishment of a panel VII(79) EC Tube or Pipe Fittings (DS219) request for establishment of a panel VII(89) EC Sardines (DS231) request for establishment of a panel VII(90) Mexico Matches (DS232) new request for consultations VII(91) Argentina Pharmaceutical Products (DS233) new request for consultations VII(92) US Subsidy Offset Act (Byrd Amendment) (Canada and Mexico) (DS234) new request for consultations VIII.B(38) Denmark Intellectual Property (DS83) notification of mutually satisfactory solution pursuant to Article 3.6 DSU VIII.B(39) Brazil Patent Protection (DS199) notification of mutually satisfactory solution pursuant to Article 3.6 DSU STATISTICAL OVERVIEW Complaints notified to the ϲʹ1 Active Cases2 Appellate Body and Panel Reports Adopted3Settled or Inactive4 Cases Reporting period/ datesince 1-1-1995on reporting datesince 1-1-1995since 1-1-1995Number 234 (180 of which involve distinct matters)1651 39  explanatory notes: 1 This category encompasses all requests for consultations notified to the ϲʹ, including those requests which have led to panel and appellate review proceedings. 2 This category encompasses pending or suspended panel proceedings or appellate review proceedings, with the exception of proceedings pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. 3 This category does not include reports resulting from proceedings pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. 4 This category includes cases where the contested measure has been terminated, a panel request was withdrawn, etc. Active Cases on Implementation of ϲʹ rulings1Adopted Appellate Body and Panel Reports on Implementation of ϲʹ rulings2 Active Arbitrations on Level of Suspension of Concessions3 ϲʹ Authorizations of Suspension of Concessions4Reporting period/ dateon reporting datesince 1-1-1995on reporting datesince 1-1-1995Number 262 5  explanatory notes: 1 This category encompasses pending or suspended panel or appellate review proceedings pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. 2 This category includes reports resulting from proceedings under Article 21.5 of the DSU. 3 This category covers arbitration proceedings pursuant to Article 22.6 and 22.7 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the Subsidies Agreement. 4 This category covers authorizations granted by the ϲʹ pursuant to Article 22.7 of the DSU and Article 4.10 of the Subsidies Agreement. TABLE OF CONTENTS  TOC \o "1-5" I. Implementation Status of Adopted Reports  PAGEREF _Toc519419150 \h 4 II. Appellate and Panel Reports Adopted Since 1 January 2001  PAGEREF _Toc519419151 \h 17 III. Appellate Body Reports Issued  PAGEREF _Toc519419152 \h 26 IV. Panel Reports Appealed  PAGEREF _Toc519419153 \h 26 V. Panel Reports Issued  PAGEREF _Toc519419154 \h 28 VI. Active Panels  PAGEREF _Toc519419155 \h 28 VII. Pending Consultations (most recent listed first)  PAGEREF _Toc519419156 \h 32 VIII. Completed Cases (most recent listed first)  PAGEREF _Toc519419157 \h 56 A. Appellate and Panel Reports Adopted before 1 January 2001  PAGEREF _Toc519419158 \h 56 B. Settled or Inactive Cases  PAGEREF _Toc519419159 \h 73 IX. SUMMARY  PAGEREF _Toc519419160 \h 83  Implementation Status of Adopted Reports For descriptions of the reports adopted since 1 January 2000 see Part II of this Overview, and for those adopted earlier than 1 January 2000, see Part VIII of this Overview. (1) United States - Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, complaints by Venezuela (WT/DS2) and Brazil (WT/DS4). The US announced implementation of the recommendations of the DSB as of 19 August 1997, at the end of the 15 month reasonable period of time. (2) Japan - Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, complaints by the European Communities (WT/DS8), Canada (WT/DS10) and the United States (WT/DS11). The period for implementation was set by the Arbitrator at 15 months from the date of adoption of the reports i.e. it expired on 1 February 1998. Japan presented modalities for implementation which were accepted by the complainants. (3) United States - Restrictions on Imports of Cotton and Man-Made Fibre Underwear, complaint by Costa Rica (WT/DS24). The US announced that the measure at issue expired as of 27 March 1997. (4) Brazil - Measures Affecting Desiccated Coconut, complaint by the Philippines (WT/DS22) - no implementation issue in view of the result. (5) United States - Measure Affecting Imports of Woven Wool Shirts and Blouses, complaint by India (WT/DS33). The US announced that the measure was withdrawn as at 22 November 1996, before the Panel had concluded its work. Therefore, no implementation issue arose. (6) Canada - Certain Measures Concerning Periodicals, complaint by the United States (WT/DS31). The implementation period was agreed by the parties to be 15 months from the date of adoption of the reports i.e. it expired on 30 October 1998. Canada has withdrawn the contested measure. (7) European Communities - Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, complaints by Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and the United States (WT/DS27). The period for implementation was set by arbitration at 15 months and 1 week from the date of the adoption of the reports i.e. it expired on 1 January 1999. The EC has revised the contested measures. On 18August1998, the complainants requested consultations with the EC (without prejudice to their rights under Article 21.5), for the resolution of the disagreement between them over the ϲʹ-consistency of measures introduced by the EC in purported compliance with the recommendations and rulings of the Panel and Appellate Body. At the DSB meeting on 25 November 1998, the EC announced that it had adopted the second Regulation to implement the recommendations of the DSB, and that the new system will be fully operational from 1January 1999. On 15December1998, the EC requested the establishment of a panel under Article 21.5 to determine that the implementing measures of the EC must be presumed to conform to ϲʹ rules unless challenged in accordance with DSU procedures. On 18December 1998, Ecuador requested the re-establishment of the original panel to examine whether the EC measures to implement the recommendations of the DSB are ϲʹ-consistent. At its meeting on 12January 1999, the DSB agreed to reconvene the original panel, pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU, to examine both Ecuador's and the EC's requests. Jamaica, Nicaragua, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cted'Ivoire, Dominican Republic, Dominica, St. Lucia, Mauritius, St. Vincent, indicated their interest to join as third parties in both requests, while Ecuador and India indicated their third-party interest only in the EC request. On 14 January 1999, the United States, pursuant to Article 22.2 of the DSU, requested authorization from the DSB for suspension of concessions to the EC in an amount of US$520million. At the DSB meeting on 29 January 1999, the EC, pursuant to Article 22.6 of the DSU, requested arbitration on the level of suspension of concessions requested by the United States. The DSB referred the issue of the level of suspension to the original panel for arbitration. Pursuant to Article 22.6 of the DSU, the request for the suspension of concessions by the United States was deferred by the DSB until the determination, through the arbitration, of the appropriate level for the suspension of concessions. In the panel requested by the EC, pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU, the panel found that, because a challenge had actually been made by Ecuador regarding the ϲʹ-consistency of the EC measures taken in implementation of the DSB recommendations, it was unable to agree with the EC that the EC must be presumed to be in compliance with the recommendations of the DSB. In the panel requested by Ecuador, pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU, the panel found that the implementation measures taken by the EC in compliance with the recommendations of the DSB were not fully compatible with the EC's ϲʹ obligations. In the arbitration under Article 22.6 of the DSU, necessitated by the EC's challenge to the level of suspension sought by the United States (US$520million), the arbitrators found that the level of suspension sought by the United States was not equivalent to the level of nullification and impairment suffered as a result of the EC's new banana regime not being fully compatible with the ϲʹ. The arbitrators accordingly determined the level of nullification suffered by the United States to be equal to US$191.4 million. The arbitrator's report and the reports of the panels were issued to the parties on 6 April 1999, and circulated to Members on 9 and 12 April 1999 respectively. On 9 April 1999, the United States, pursuant to Article 22.7 of the DSU, requested that the DSB authorize suspension of concessions to the EC equivalent to the level of nullification and impairment, i.e. US$191.4 million. On 19 April 1999, the DSB authorized the United States to suspend concessions to the EC as requested. The report of the panel requested by Ecuador, under Article 21.5 of the DSU, was adopted by the DSB on 6 May 1999. On 8 November 1999, Ecuador requested authorization from the DSB to suspend the application to the EC of concessions or other related obligations under the TRIPS Agreement, GATS and GATT 1994, pursuant to Article 22.2 of the DSU, in an amount of US$450 million. At the DSB meeting on 19 November 1999, the EC, pursuant to Article 22.6 of the DSU, requested arbitration on the level of suspension of concessions requested by Ecuador. The DSB referred the issue of the level of suspension to the original panel for arbitration. Pursuant to Article 22.6 of the DSU, the request for the suspension of concessions by Ecuador was deferred by the DSB until the determination, through the arbitration, of the appropriate level for the suspension of concessions. Also at the DSB meeting on 19 November 1999, the EC informed the DSB of its proposal for reform of the banana regime, which envisages a two-stage process, comprising a tariff rate quota system for several years. This system should then be replaced by a tariff only system no later than 1 January 2006. The proposal includes a decision to continue discussions with interested parties on the possible systems for distribution of licences for the tariff rate quota regime. If no feasible system can be found, the proposal for a transitional tariff rate quota regime would not be maintained and negotiations under Article XXVIII of GATT 1994 would be envisaged to replace the current system with a tariff only regime. At the DSB meeting on 24 February 2000, the EC explained that there continued to be divergent views expressed by the main parties concerned and that, as a result, no agreed conclusions could be reached. The arbitrator's report (on the Ecuadorian request for suspension of concessions) was circulated to Members on 24 March 2000. The arbitrators found that the level of nullification and impairment suffered by Ecuador amounted to US$201.6 million per year. The arbitrators found that Ecuador may request authorization by the DSB to suspend concessions or other obligations under GATT 1994 (not including investment goods or primary goods used as inputs in manufacturing and processing industries); under GATS with respect to "wholesale trade services" (CPC 622) in the principal distribution services; and, to the extent that suspension requested under GATT 1994 and GATS was insufficient to reach the level of nullification and impairment determined by the arbitrators, under TRIPS in the following sectors of that Agreement: Section 1 (copyright and related rights); Article 14 on protection of performers, producers of phonograms and broadcasting organisations), Section 3 (geographical indications), Section 4 (industrial designs). The arbitrators also noted that, pursuant to Article 22.3 of the DSU, Ecuador should first seek to suspend concessions or other obligations with respect to the same sectors as those in which the panel reconvened at the request of Ecuador pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU had found violations, i.e. GATT 1994 and the sector of distribution services under GATS. On 8 May 2000, Ecuador requested, pursuant to Article 22.7 of the DSU, that the DSB authorize the suspension of concessions to the EC equivalent to the level of nullification and impairment, i.e. US$201.6 million. On 18 May 2000, the DSB authorized Ecuador to suspend concessions to the European Communities as requested. At the DSB meeting of 27 July 2000, the European Communities stated with respect to implementation of the recommendations of the DSB that it had begun examining the possibility of managing the proposed tariff rate quotas on a first come, first served basis because negotiations with interested parties on tariff rate quota allocation on the basis of traditional trade flows had reached an impasse. The European Communities also said that its examination would include a tariff only system and its implications. At the DSB meeting of 23 October 2000, the EC stated that it was finalizing its internal decision-making process with a view to implementing the new banana regime. To this effect, the EC considered that, during a transitional period of time, its new banana regime should be regulated by the establishment of tariff-rate quotas and managed on the basis of a "first-come, first-served" (FCFS) system. Before the end of transitional period of time, the EC would initiate ArticleXXVIII negotiations with a view to establishing a tariff-only system. On 1 March 2001, the EC reported to the DSB that on 29 January 2001, the Council of the European Union adopted Regulation (EC) No216/2001 amending Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 on the common organisation of the market in bananas. The modifications made in Council Regulation 216/2001 provide for three tariff quotas open to all imports irrespective of their origin: (1) a first tariff quota of 2.200.000 tonnes at a rate of 75 /tonnes, bound under the WTO; (2) a second autonomous quota of 353.000 tonnes at a rate of 75 /tonnes; (3) a third autonomous quota of 850.000 tonnes at a rate of 300 /tonnes. Imports from ACP countries will enter duty-free. In view of contractual obligations towards these countries and the need to guarantee proper conditions of competition, they will benefit from a tariff preference limited to a maximum of 300 /tonnes. The tariff quotas are a transitional measure leading ultimately to a tariff-only regime. According to the EC, substantial progress has been achieved with respect to the implementing measures necessary to manage the three tariff rate quotas on the basis of the First-come, First-served method. On 3 May 2001, the EC reported to the DSB that intensive discussions with the US and Ecuador, as well as the other banana supplying countries, including the other co-complainants, have led to the common identification of the means by which the long-standing dispute over the EC's bananas import regime will be resolved. In accordance with Article 16(1) of Regulation No (EC) 404/93 (as amended by Council Regulation No (EC) 216/2001), the EC will introduce a Tariff Only regime for imports of bananas no later than 1 January 2006. GATT Article XXVIII negotiations will be initiated in good time to that effect. In the interim period, starting on 1 July 2001, the EC will implement an import regime based on three tariff rate quotas, to be allocated on the basis of historical licensing. On 22 June 2001, the EC notified an "Understanding on Bananas between the EC and the US" of 11 April 2001, and an "Understanding on Bananas between the EC and Ecuador" of 30 April 2001. Pursuant to these Understandings with the US and Ecuador, the EC will implement an import regime on the basis of historical licensing as follows: (1) effective 1 July 2001, the EC will implement an import regime on the basis of historical licensing as set out in annex to each of the Understandings; (2) effective as soon as possible thereafter, subject to Council and European Parliament approval and to adoption of an Article XIII waiver, the EC will implement an import regime on the basis of historical licensing as set out in annex to each of the Understandings. The Commission will seek to obtain the implementation of such an import regime as soon as possible. Pursuant to its Understanding with the EC, the US, (i) upon implementation of the new import regime described under (1) above, will provisionally suspend its imposition of the increased duties; (ii) upon implementation of the new import regime described under (2) above, will terminate its imposition of the increased duties; (iii) may reimpose the increased duties if the import regime described under (2) does not enter into force by 1 January 2002; and (iv) will lift its reserve concerning the waiver of Article I of the GATT 1994 that the EC has requested for preferential access to the EC of goods originating in ACP states signatory to the Cotonou Agreement; and will actively work towards promoting the acceptance of an EC request for a waiver of Article XIII of the GATT 1994 needed for the management of quota C under the import regime described under (2) above until 31December 2005. Pursuant to its Understanding with the EC, Ecuador (i) takes note that the European Commission will examine the trade in organic bananas and report accordingly by 31 December 2004; (ii) upon implementation of the new import regime, Ecuador's right to suspend concessions or other obligations of a level not exceeding US$201.6 million per year vis--vis the EC will be terminated; (iii) Ecuador will lift its reserve concerning the waiver of Article I of the GATT 1994 that the EC has requested for preferential access to the EC of goods originating in ACP states signatory to the Cotonou Agreement; and will actively work towards promoting the acceptance of an EC request for a waiver of Article XIII of the GATT 1994 needed for the management of quota C under the import regime described in paragraph C(2) until 31 December 2005. The EC has notified the Understandings as mutually satisfactory solutions within the meaning of Article 3.6 DSU. Both Ecuador and the US have communicated that the Understandings do not constitute mutually satisfactory solutions within the meaning of Article 3.6 DSU and that it would be premature to take the item of the DSB agenda. (8) India - Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical Products, complaint by the United States (WT/DS50). The period of implementation was agreed by the parties to be 15 months from the date of the adoption of the reports i.e. it expires on 16 April 1999. India has undertaken to comply with the recommendations of the DSB within the implementation period. At the DSB meeting on 28 April 1999, India presented its final status report on implementation of this matter which disclosed the enactment of the relevant legislation to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. (9) European Communities - Measures Affecting Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), complaint by the United States (WT/DS26), and Canada (WT/DS48). The period for implementation was set by arbitration at 15 months from the date of the adoption of the reports i.e. it expires on 13May 1999. The EC has undertaken to comply with the recommendations of the DSB within the implementation period. At the DSB meeting on 28 April 1999, the EC informed the DSB that it would consider offering compensation in view of the likelihood that it may not be able to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB by the deadline of 13 May 1999. On 3 June 1999, the United States and Canada, pursuant to Article22.2 of the DSU, requested authorization from the DSB for the suspension of concessions to the EC in the amount of US$202 million and Can.$75 million, respectively. The EC, pursuant to Article 22.6 of the DSU, requested arbitration on the level of suspension of concessions requested by the United States and Canada. The DSB referred the issue of the level of suspension to the original panel for arbitration. The arbitrators determined the level of nullification suffered by the UnitedStates to be equal to US$116.8 million, and the level of nullification suffered by Canada to be equal to CDN$11.3 million. The reports of the arbitrators were circulated to Members on 12 July 1999. At its meeting on 26 July 1999, the DSB authorized the suspension of concessions to the EC by the United States and Canada in the respective amounts determined by the arbitrators as being equivalent to the level of nullification suffered by them. (10) Argentina - Certain Measures Affecting Imports of Footwear, Textiles, Apparel and Other Items, complaint by the United States (WT/DS56). Argentina has indicated its intention to comply with the recommendations of the DSB within the time period permissible under Article 21 of the DSU. At the DSB meeting on 22 June 1998, Argentina announced that it had reached an agreement on implementation with the US, whereby Argentina would reduce the statistical tax to 0.5% by 1January1999, and cap specific duties on textiles and apparel at 35% by 19 October 1998. At the DSB meeting on 26 May 1999, Argentina announced that Decree 108/99, pursuant to which no import transactions covered by the statistical tax shall be taxed in excess of the amounts agreed between it and the United States, will enter into force on 30 May 1999. (11) Japan - Measures Affecting Consumer Photographic Film and Paper, complaint by the United States (WT/DS44) - no implementation issue in view of the result. (12) European Communities - Customs Classification of Certain Computer Equipment, complaint by the United States (WT/DS62, 67, 68). No implementation issue in view of the result. (13) European Communities - Measures Affecting Importation of Certain Poultry Products, complaint by Brazil (WT/DS69). The EC and Brazil announced at the DSB meeting on 21October1998, that they had reached a mutual agreement on a reasonable period of time for implementation, which is to be the period up to 31 March 1999. (14) Indonesia - Certain Measures Affecting the Automobile Industry, complaints by the United States, the European Communities and Japan (WT/DS54, 55, 59 & 64). Indonesia indicated its intention to comply with the recommendations of the DSB within the time permissible under Article 21 of the DSU. On 8 October 1998, the EC, pursuant to Article 21.3 of the DSU, requested that the reasonable period of implementation be determined by binding arbitration. The Arbitrator determined, pursuant to Article 21.3 of the DSU, that the reasonable period of time for Indonesia to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB is 12 months from the date of adoption of the Panel Report i.e. it expires on 23 July 1999. The report of the Arbitrator was circulated to Members on 7December1998. By a communication dated 15 July 1999, Indonesia informed the DSB that it had issued a new automotive policy on 24 June 1999 (the 1999 Automotive Policy), which effectively implements the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this matter. (15) India - Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical Products, complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS79/1). India indicated at the DSB meeting of 21 October 1998, that it needed a reasonable period of time to comply with the DSB recommendations and that it intended to have bilateral consultations with the EC to agree on a mutually acceptable period of time. At the DSB meeting on 25 November 1998, India read out a joint statement done with the EC, in which it was agreed that the implementation period in this dispute would correspond to the implementation period in a similar dispute brought by the US (DS50). At the DSB meeting on 28 April 1999, India presented its final status report on implementation of DS50, which report also applies to implementation in this dispute. The report disclosed the enactment of the relevant legislation to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. (16) United States - Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, complaint by India, Malaysia, Pakistan and Thailand (WT/DS58). Pursuant to Article 21.3 of the DSU, the US has 30 days from the date of adoption of the Panel and Appellate Body Reports (i.e. from 6 November 1998) to inform the DSB of its intentions regarding implementation of the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. At the DSB meeting on 25 November 1998, the US informed the DSB that it was committed to implementing the recommendations of the DSB and was looking forward to discussing with the complainants the question of implementation. The parties to the dispute have announced that they have agreed on an implementation period of 13 months from the date of adoption of the Appellate Body and Panel Reports, i.e. it expired on 6 December 1999. On 22 December 1999, Malaysia and the UnitedStates informed the DSB that they had reached an understanding regarding possible proceedings under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU. At the DSB meeting on 27 January 2000, the US stated that it had implemented the DSB's rulings and recommendations. The US noted that it had issued revised guidelines implementing its Shrimp/Turtle law which were intended to (i) introduce greater flexibility in considering the comparability of foreign programmes and the US programme and (ii) elaborate a timetable and procedures for certification decisions. The US also noted that it had undertaken and continued to undertake efforts to initiate negotiations with the governments of the Indian Ocean region on the protection of sea turtles in that region. Finally, the US stated that it offered and continued to offer technical training in the design, construction, installation and operation of TEDs to any government that requested it. On 12 October 2000, Malaysia requested that the matter be referred to the original panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU, considering that by not lifting the import prohibition and not taking the necessary measures to allow the importation of certain shrimp and shrimp products in an unrestrictive manner, the United States had failed to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. At its meeting of 23 October 2000, the DSB referred the matter to the original panel pursuant to Article 21.5 DSU. Australia, Canada, the EC, Ecuador, India, Japan, Mexico, Pakistan, Thailand and Hong Kong, China reserved their third-party rights to participate in the Panel's proceedings. The Panel circulated its report on 15 June 2001. The Panel concluded that: (i) the measure adopted by the US in order to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB violates Article XI.1 of the GATT 1994; (ii) in light of the recommendations and rulings of the DSB, Section 609 of Public Law101-162, as implemented by the Revised Guidelines of 8 July 1999 and as applied so far by the US authorities, is justified under Article XX of the GATT 1994 as long as the conditions stated in the findings of this Report, in particular the ongoing serious good faith efforts to reach a multilateral agreement, remain satisfied. The Panel noted that should any one of the conditions referred to under (ii) above cease to be met in the future, the recommendations of the DSB may no longer be complied with. The Panel believed that, in such a case, any complaining party in the original case may be entitled to have further recourse to Article21.5 of the DSU. (17) Australia - Measures Affecting the Importation of Salmon, complaint by Canada (WT/DS18). Pursuant to Article 21.3 of the DSU, Australia has 30 days from the date of adoption of the Panel and Appellate Body Reports (i.e. from 6 November 1998) to inform the DSB of its intentions regarding implementation of the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. At the DSB meeting on 25November1998, Australia informed the DSB that it was committed to implementing the recommendations of the DSB and was looking forward to discussing with the complainants the question of implementation. On 24 December 1998, Canada requested arbitration, pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, to determine the reasonable period of time for implementation of the recommendations of the DSB. The Arbitrator decided that the reasonable period of time for implementation is 8 months i.e. it expires on 6 July 1999. The report of the Arbitrator was circulated to Members on 23 February 1999. On 28 July 1999, Canada made a request to the DSB, pursuant to DSU Article 22.2, for authorization to suspend concessions to Australia for its non-compliance with the recommendations of the DSB in this matter. Canada simultaneously made a request, pursuant to DSU Article 21.5, for determination by the original panel of whether the measures taken by Australia in implementing the recommendations of the DSB were ϲʹ-consistent. Australia informed the DSB that in the event that the DSB approved Canada's request under 22.2, it wished to request, pursuant to DSU 22.6, for arbitration on the level of nullification suffered by Canada. The DSB agreed to Canada's request and referred the matter for determination of the ϲʹ-consistency of the implementing measures to the original panel. The EC, Norway and the US reserved their third-party rights. The DSB also referred the Canadian request for suspension of concessions to arbitration in view of Australia's challenge of the level of nullification suffered by Canada. On 18 February 2000, the report of the DSU Article 21.5 panel was circulated to Members. The panel found that, due to delays in the entry into force of several implementing measures which extended beyond the reasonable period of time within which Australia had to implement the DSB recommendations, no measures to comply existed in the sense of Article 21.5 of the DSU in respect of a number of covered products and during specific periods of time. As a result, during those periods, Australia failed to bring its measure into conformity with the SPS Agreement in the sense referred to in Article 22.6 of the DSU. The panel also found that Australia, by requiring that only salmon product that is "consumer-ready" as specifically defined can be imported into Australia and released from quarantine, was maintaining sanitary measures that were not "based on" a risk assessment, which was contrary to Articles 5.1 and 2.2 of the SPS Agreement. The panel also considered the same requirement to be in violation of Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement. Finally, the panel found that Australia violated Articles 5.1 and 2.2 of the SPS Agreement as a result of a measure enacted by the Government of Tasmania that effectively prohibits the importation of certain Canadian salmon product into most parts of Tasmania without being based on a risk assessment and without sufficient scientific evidence. At its meeting on 20 March 2000, the DSB adopted the report of the panel. (18) Guatemala - Anti-Dumping Investigation Regarding Imports of Portland Cement from Mexico (WT/DS60). In view of the result, no implementation issue arises. (19) Korea Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, complaints by the European Communities and the United States (DS 75 & 84). At the DSB meeting on 19 March 1999, Korea informed the DSB, as required by Article 21.3 of the DSU, that it was considering options for implementation of the DSB's recommendations. On 9 April 1999, the two complainants separately requested, pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, that the reasonable period of time for Korea to implement the recommendations of the DSB be determined by arbitration. On 23 April 1999, the three parties to the dispute jointly informed the DSB that they had agreed on the appointment of an arbitrator for the determination of the reasonable period of time for implementation, and also that they had agreed that the arbitrator issue his arbitration award no later than 7 June 1999. On 4 June 1999, the arbitrator determined the reasonable period of time to be 11 months and two weeks. i.e. until 31 January 2000. At the DSB meeting on 27 January 2000, Korea stated that it considered to have fully implemented the DSB's rulings and recommendations by amending its Liquor Tax Law and the Education Tax Law to impose flat rates of 72% liquor tax and 30% education tax on all distilled alcoholic beverages on a non-discriminatory basis. (20) Japan - Measures Affecting Agricultural Products, complaint by the United States (WT/DS76/1). Pursuant to Article 21.3 of the DSU, Japan informed the DSB on 13 April 1999 that it was studying ways in which to implement the recommendations of the DSB. In a joint communication, the two parties informed the DSB on 15 June 1999, that they had agreed on an implementation period of 9 months and 12 days from the date of adoption of the reports, i.e. from 19 March to 31 December 1999. On 31 December 1999, Japan abolished the varietal testing requirement as well as the "Experimental Guide" in accordance with the DSB's rulings. At the DSB meeting on 14 January 2000, Japan also stated that it was conducting consultations with the US regarding a new quarantine methodology for those products subject to import prohibitions because they were hosts of codling moth. At the DSB meeting on 24 February 2000, Japan noted that it expected to reach a mutually satisfactory solution with the US regarding a new quarantine methodology. (21) United States - Anti-Dumping Duty on Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors (DRAMS) of One Megabit or Above from Korea, complaint by Korea (WT/DS99/1). Pursuant to Article 21.3 of the DSU, the United States informed the DSB on 13 April 1999 that it was studying ways in which to implement the recommendations of the DSB. At the DSB meeting on 26 July 1999, the two parties notified the DSB that they had agreed on an implementation period of 8 months effective from the date of adoption of the report, i.e. from 19 March 1999. The reasonable period of time expired on 19 November 1999. At the DSB meeting on 27 January 2000, the US stated that it considered to have implemented the recommendations and rulings by the DSB. The US recalled that the Commerce Department had amended section 351.222(b) by deleting the "not likely" standard and incorporating the "necessary" standard of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. The Commerce Department then issued a revised Final Results of Redetermination in the Third Administrative Review on 4 November 1999, concluding that, because a resumption of dumping was likely, it was necessary to leave the anti-dumping order in place. On 9 March 2000, Korea informed the DSB that it believed that the measures taken by the United States to comply with the rulings and recommendations of the DSB were not consistent with the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article X:1 of GATT 1994. Korea therefore requested that this matter be referred to the original panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. On 6 April 2000, Korea submitted a new request to the effect that the matter be referred to the original panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. At its meeting on 25 April 2000, the DSB agreed to reconvene the original panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. The EC reserved its reserved its third-party rights. 19 September 2000, Korea has requested the Panel to suspend its work, including the issuance of the interim report, "until further notification" pursuant to Article 12.12 of the DSU. The Panel, in a letter sent to the parties on 21 September 2000, has agreed to this request. On 20 October 2000, the parties notified the DSB of a mutually satisfactory solution to the matter, involving the revocation of the antidumping order at issue as the result of a five-year "sunset" review by the US Department of Commerce. (22) Australia - Subsidies Provided to Producers and Exporters of Automotive Leather, complaint by the United States (WT/DS126/1). On 17 September 1999, Australia informed the DSB that it had implemented the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. On 4 October 1999, the United States informed the DSB that it believed that the measures taken by Australia to comply with the rulings and recommendations of the DSB were not consistent with the Subsidies Agreement and the DSU, and therefore requested that the original panel be reconvened pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. The United States and Australia reached an agreement concerning certain procedures to be applicable in this case. That agreement provides, inter alia, that Australia will not raise any procedural objection to the establishment of a panel in accordance with Article 21.5 of the DSU, while the United States will not request authorization to suspend concessions pursuant to Article22.2 of the DSU until after the review panel has circulated its report. Also, it has been agreed that neither party will appeal the review panel's report. At its meeting on 14 October 1999, the DSB agreed to reconvene the original panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. The EC and Mexico reserved their third-party rights. The report of the panel was circulated to Members on 21 January 2000. The panel determined that Australia had failed to withdraw the prohibited subsidies within 90 days, and thus had not taken measures to comply with the recommendation of the DSB in this dispute. The DSB adopted the review panel's report on 11 February 2000. On 24 July 2000, the parties notified the DSB that they had reached a mutually satisfactory solution in regard to implementation of the findings of the review panel. (23) India - Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and Industrial Products complaint by the United States (WT/DS90/1). At the DSB meeting of 14October1999, India stated its intention to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB, at the same time drawing attention to the Panel's suggestion that the reasonable period of time for implementation in this case could be longer than 15 months in view of the practice of the IMF, the BOP Committee and GATT and ϲʹ panels of granting longer phase-out periods for the elimination of BOP restrictions, and in view of India's status as a developing country Member. On 28 December 1999, the parties informed the DSB that they had reached an agreement on the reasonable period of time for India to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. The reasonable period of time is to expire on 1 April 2000, except for some tariff items to be notified by India to the US for which the reasonable period of time is to expire on 1 April 2001. Pursuant to the agreement reached, India also is treat the US no less favourably than any other Member with respect to the elimination of or modification of quantitative restrictions affecting any product covered by the agreement. At the DSB meeting of 27 July 2000, India stated that it had notified to the United States those tariff items for which the reasonable period is to expire on 1 April 2001 and that for all other items India had implemented the recommendation of the DSB by 1 April 2000. At the DSB meeting of 5 April 2001, India announced that, with effect from 1 April 2001, it had removed the quantitative restrictions on imports in respect of the remaining 715 items and had thus implemented the DSB's recommendations in this case. The United States welcomed India's action and said that it had some specific questions to ask India in the next few days. (24) Brazil - Export Financing Programme for Aircraft, complaint by Canada (WT/DS46). At the DSB meeting of 19 November 1999, Brazil announced that it had withdrawn the measures at issue within 90 days and had thus implemented the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. On 23November1999, Canada requested the establishment of a panel under Article 21.5, requesting that the panel find that Brazil had not taken measures to comply fully with the rulings and recommendations of the DSB. Canada and Brazil reached an agreement concerning the procedures to be applicable pursuant to Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU and Article 4 of the Subsidies Agreement. At its meeting on 9 December 1999, the DSB agreed to reconvene the original panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. Australia, the EC and the US reserved their third-party rights. The report of the panel was circulated to Members on 9 May 2000. The panel found that Brazil's measures to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB either did not exist or were not consistent with the Subsidies Agreement. In reaching this conclusion, the panel notably rejected Brazil's defence that PROEX payments were permitted under item (k) of Annex I of the Subsidies Agreement, adding that, if a ϲʹ Member encountered an export credit that had been provided on terms that it could not meet consistent with the SCM Agreement, the proper response was to challenge that export credit in ϲʹ dispute settlement. On 10 May, Canada requested authorization from the DSB to suspend the application to Brazil of concessions or other related obligations under the GATT, the Textiles Agreement and the Import Licensing Agreement, pursuant to Article 4.10 of the Subsidies Agreement and Article 22.2 of the DSU, in an amount of Can$700 million per year. On 22 May 2000, Brazil notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed by the review panel. At the DSB meeting on 22 May 2000, Brazil also requested arbitration, pursuant to Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the Subsidies Agreement, to determine whether the countermeasures requested by Canada were appropriate. The DSB referred the matter to the original panel for arbitration, it being understood that no countermeasures would be sought pending the report of the Appellate Body and until after the arbitration report. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members on 9 May 2000. The Appellate Body upheld the review panel's conclusion that Brazil has failed to implement the recommendation of the DSB because of the continued issuance by Brazil of NTN-I bonds, after 18 November 1999, pursuant to letters of commitment issued before 18 November 1999. The Appellate Body also upheld the review panel's findings that payments made under the revised PROEX are prohibited by Article 3 of the Subsidies Agreement and are not justified under item (k) of the Illustrative List of the same Agreement. The Appellate Body therefore upheld the review panel's conclusion that Brazil has failed to implement the recommendations of the DSB. The DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body report, at its meeting on 4 August 2000. Brazil stated its intention to bring future PROEX operations in line with the recommendations of the DSB. The arbitrator's report was circulated to Members on 28 August 2000. The arbitrators found that the appropriate countermeasures in this case amounted to C$344.2 million per year. The arbitrators found that Canada may request authorization by the DSB to suspend tariff concessions or other obligations under GATT 1994, the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing and the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures. At the DSB meeting of 12 December 2000, Canada received, pursuant to Article 22.7 of the DSU and Article 4.10 of the SCM Agreement, authorization from the DSB to suspend the application to Brazil of tariff concessions or other obligations under GATT 1994, the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing and the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures covering trade in a maximum amount of C$ 344.2 million per year. On 12 December 2000, Brazil advised the DSB of changes that it had made to the measures at issue in this case and claimed that PROEX had been brought into compliance with Brazil's obligations under the SCM Agreement. Canada is of the view that Brazil continues to violate its SCMAgreement obligations. According to Canada, there is therefore a disagreement between Canada and Brazil as to whether the measures taken by Brazil to comply with the 20August 1999 and 4 August 2000 rulings and recommendations of the DSB bring Brazil into conformity with the provisions of the SCMAgreement and result in the withdrawal of the export subsidies to regional aircraft under PROEX. On 22 January 2001, Canada requested the DSB to refer the matter again to the original panel, pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. At its meeting of 16 February 2001, the DSB referred the matter to the original panel. Australia, the EC and Korea reserved their third-party rights. (25) Canada - Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft, complaint by Brazil (WT/DS70). At the DSB meeting of 19 November 1999, Canada announced that it had withdrawn the measures at issue within 90 days and thus had implemented the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. On 23November1999, Brazil requested the establishment of a panel under Article 21.5 because it believed that Canada had not taken measures to comply fully with the rulings and recommendations of the DSB. Brazil and Canada reached an agreement concerning the procedures to be applicable pursuant to Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU and Article 4 of the Subsidies Agreement. At its meeting on 9 December 1999, the DSB agreed to reconvene the original panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. Australia, the EC and the US reserved their third-party rights. The report of the panel was circulated to Members on 9 May 2000. The panel found that (i) Canada had implemented the recommendation of the DSB that Canada withdraw Technology Partnership Canada (TPC) assistance to the Canadian regional aircraft industry within 90 days, but that (ii) Canada had failed to implement the recommendation that it withdraw the Canada Account assistance to the Canadian regional aircraft industry within 90 days. With regard to the latter finding, the panel considered that the measures taken by Canada were not sufficient to ensure that future Canada Account transactions in the Canadian regional aircraft sector would be in conformity with the interest rate provisions of the OECD Arrangement and would thereby qualify for the safe haven in item (k) of Annex I of the Subsidies Agreement. The panel therefore concluded that Canada's measures did not ensure that such Canada Account transactions would not be prohibited export subsidies. On 22 May 2000, Brazil notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed by the review panel. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members on 9 May 2000. The Appellate Body found that the review panel erred in declining to examine one of Brazil's arguments to the effect that the revised TPC programme is inconsistent with Article 3.1(a) of the Subsidies Agreement. The Appellate Body also found, however, that Brazil had failed to establish that the revised TPC programme is inconsistent with Article 3.1(a) of the Subsidies Agreement and, accordingly, that Brazil had failed to establish that Canada has not implemented the recommendations of the DSB. The DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body report, at its meeting on 4 August 2000. Canada stated its intention to implement the recommendations of the DSB in respect of the Canada Account Programme. (26)(a) Canada - Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products, complaint by the United States (WT/DS103/1). At the DSB meeting of 19 November 1999, Canada stated its intention to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. On 23 December 1999, Canada informed the DSB that, pursuant to Article 21.3 of the DSU and after having agreed to extend the time periods set forth in Article 21.3(b) of the DSU, Canada, the US and New Zealand reached an understanding on four discrete periods of time to be accorded to Canada for a staged implementation process. According to the implementation agreement, Canada must complete the last stage of the implementation process no later than 31 December 2000. On 11 December 2000, Canada, the US and New Zealand informed the DSB that they had agreed to extend the reasonable period of time until 31 January 2001. On 16 February 2001, both the US and New Zealand requested the DSB to refer the matter to the original panel pursuant to Article 21.5 DSU. At its meeting of 1 March 2001, the DSB referred the matter to the original panel, if possible. Australia, the EC and Mexico reserved their third party rights. Also on 16 February 2001, both the US and New Zealand also requested authorization from the DSB, pursuant to Article 22.2 DSU, to suspend the application to Canada of tariff concessions and related obligations under the GATT 1994, each covering trade in the amount of US$ 35 million on an annual basis. On 28 February 2001, Canada objected to the level of suspension and requested that the matter be referred to arbitration pursuant to Article 22.6 DSU. At its meeting of 1 March 2001, the DSB referred the matter to arbitration. The Article 21.5 Panel circulated its report on 11 July 2001. The Panel concluded that Canada, through the CEM scheme and the continued operation of Special Milk Class 5(d), has acted inconsistently with its obligations under Articles 3.3 and 8 of the Agreement on Agriculture, by providing export subsidies within the meaning of Article 9.1(c) of the Agreement on Agriculture in excess of its quantity commitment levels specified in its Schedule for exports of cheese, for the marketing year 2000/2001. (26)(b) Canada - Measures Affecting Dairy Products, complaint by New Zealand (WT/DS113/1). See DS103 above. (27) Turkey Restrictions on Imports of Textile and Clothing Products, complaint by India (WT/DS34). At the DSB meeting of 19 November 1999, Turkey stated its intention to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. On 7 January 2000, the parties informed the DSB that they had agreed that the reasonable period of time for Turkey to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings would expire on 19 February 2001. Pursuant to the agreement reached, Turkey also is to refrain from making more restrictive restrictions affecting imports of specified textile and clothing products from India, to increase the size of the quotas of India on certain specified textile and clothing products and to treat India no less favourably than any other Member with respect to the elimination of or modification of quantitative restrictions affecting any product covered by the agreement. On 6 July 2001, the parties to the dispute notified the DSB that they have reached a mutually acceptable solution regarding implementation by Turkey of the conclusions and recommendations adopted by the DSB on the matter. Pursuant to the Agreement, Turkey shall (1) remove the quantitative restrictions it applies on textile categories 24 and 27 in respect of imports from India, by 30 June 2001 or the date of signature of the Agreement; (2) carry out tariff reductions on the applied rate basis as described in annex to the Agreement, by 30 September 2001; (3) strive towards early compliance with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. Pursuant to the Agreement, the compensation shall remain effective until Turkey removes all quantitative restrictions applied as of 1 January 1996 in respect of imports from India for the 19 categories of textile and clothing products. (28)(a) Chile Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS87/1). Pursuant to Article 21.3 of the DSU, Chile informed the DSB on 11 February 2000 that it was studying ways in which to implement the recommendations of the DSB, noting that any changes to its tax laws required the approval of the National Congress and that it would therefore require a reasonable period of time to implement the recommendations of the DSB. On 15 March 2000, Chile requested, pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, that the reasonable period of time be determined by arbitration. The report of the arbitrator was circulated to Members on 23May2000. The arbitrator determined, pursuant to Article 21.3 of the DSU, that the reasonable period of time for Chile to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB is not more than 14 months and 9 days from 12 January 2000, i.e. Chile has until 21 March 2001 to enact and put into effect a law appropriately amending the relevant tax legislation. At the DSB meeting of 1 February 2001, Chile announced that implementing legislation was adopted by a clear majority in both the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate, and that its full entry into force awaits only on its promulgation by the President of the Republic and its publication in the Official Journal. Under this legislative reform, the current rate of 27 per cent will be maintained for Pisco, while that same rate will be applied to other alcoholic beverages as from 21 March 2003. In the meantime, the tax applied to those spirits will be progressively reduced to 27 per cent. (28)(b) Chile - Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS110/1). See DS87 above. (29) Korea - Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Certain Dairy Products, complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS98/1). Pursuant to Article 21.3 of the DSU, Korea informed the DSB on 11 February 2000 that it was studying ways in which to implement the recommendations of the DSB. On 21 March 2000, the parties notified the DSB that they had agreed on a reasonable period of time for Korea's implementation of the recommendations of the DSB. Pursuant to that agreement, the reasonable period expired on 20 May 2000. At the DSB meeting of 26 September 2000, Korea informed the DSB that it had lifted its safeguard measure on 20 May 2000 and stated that it thereby had completed the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in this case.. (30) Argentina - Safeguard Measures on Imports of Footwear, complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS121/1). Pursuant to Article 21.3 of the DSU, Argentina informed the DSB on 11 February 2000 that it was studying ways in which to implement the recommendations of the DSB. (31) Mexico - Anti-Dumping Investigation of High-Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) from the United States, complaint by the United States (WT/DS132/1). Pursuant to Article 21.3 of the DSU, Mexico informed the DSB on 20 March 2000 that it was studying ways in which to implement the recommendations of the DSB. Mexico also indicated that it would need a reasonable period of time in order to implement the DSB recommendations. On 19 April 2000, the parties informed the DSB that they had agreed, pursuant to Article 21.3(b) of the DSU, on a reasonable period of time to be granted to Mexico to implement the recommendations of the DSB. That period is to expire on 22 September 2000. At the DSB meeting of 26 September 2000, Mexico stated that it had published on 20 September 2000 the final determination on anti-dumping investigation of high-fructose corn syrup from the United States and thereby complied with the Panel's recommendation. The United States stated that it would examine Mexico's final determination. On 12 October 2000, the United States requested that the DSB refer the matter to the original panel, pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. At its meeting of 23 October 2000, the DSB referred the matter to the original panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. The EC, Jamaica and Mauritius reserved their third-party rights to participate in the Panel's proceedings. The United States and Mexico informed the DSB that they were discussing mutually agreeable procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU in relation to this matter. The Article 21.5 Panel circulated its report on 22 June 2001. The Panel concluded that Mexico's imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of HFCS from the US on the basis of the SECOFI redetermination is inconsistent with the requirements of the ADAgreement in that Mexico's inadequate consideration of the impact of dumped imports on the domestic industry, and its inadequate consideration of the potential effect of the alleged restraint agreement in its determination of likelihood of substantially increased importation, are not consistent with the provisions of Articles3.1, 3.4, 3.7 and 3.7(i) of the ADAgreement. Th Panel therefore considered that Mexico has failed to implement the recommendation of the original Panel and the DSU to bring its measure into conformity with its obligations under the ADAgreement. (32) United States - Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations" (WT/DS108/1), complaint by the European Communities. Pursuant to Article 21.3 of the DSU, the US informed the DSB on 7 April 2000 of its intention to implement the recommendations of the DSB in a manner consistent with its ϲʹ obligations. At the request of the United States, at its meeting of 12 October 2000, the DSB modified the time-period for implementation so as to expire on 1 November 2000. On 17 November 2000, the US stated that, with the adoption on 15 November 2000 of the FSC Repeal and Extraterritorial Income Exclusion Act, it had implemented the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. On the same date, the EC stated that, in its view, the US had failed to comply with the DSB recommendations and rulings, and requested the US to enter into consultations with the EC pursuant to Articles 4 and 21.5 of the DSU, Article 4 of the SCM Agreement, Article 19 of the Agreement on Agriculture and Article XXIII:1 of GATT 1994. Also on 17 November 2000, the EC requested authorisation from the DSB to take appropriate countermeasures and suspend concessions pursuant to Article 4.10 of the SCM Agreement and Article 22.2 of the DSU. Pursuant to an agreement between the parties to the dispute, the US will request arbitration with respect to the EC's request and the arbitration will be suspended until the reconstituted panel has decided the conformity of the new US legislation with the panel and Appellate Body reports. On 27 November 2000, the US requested that the matter be referred to arbitration pursuant to Article 22.6 of the DSU. On 7 December 2000, the EC notified the DSB that consultations had failed to settle the dispute and that it was requesting the establishment of a panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. At its meeting of 20 December, the DSB agreed to refer the matter to the original panel. On 21 December 2000, pursuant to an agreement between the parties, the US and the EC jointly requested the Article 22.6 DSU arbitrator to suspend the arbitration proceeding until adoption of the panel report or, if there is an appeal, adoption of the Appellate Body report. The arbitration was accordingly suspended. (33) Canada - Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products, complaint by the European Communities and their member States (WT/DS114/1). Pursuant to Article 21.3 of the DSU, Canada informed the DSB on 25 April 2000 that it would require a reasonable period of time in order to implement the recommendations of the DSB. Since the parties had failed to reach a mutually satisfactory solution as to the "reasonable period of time" for implementation of the recommendations of the DSB, despite a mutually agreed extension of the period of time foreseen in Article 21.3(b) of the DSU, on 9 June 2000, the European Communities and their member States requested that the reasonable period of time be determined by arbitration pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU. The arbitrator determined, pursuant to Article 21.3 of the DSU, that the reasonable period of time for Canada to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB is six months from the date of adoption of the panel report and that the reasonable period would thus end on 7 October 2000. At the DSB meeting of 23 October 2000, Canada informed Members that, effective from 7 October 2000, it had implemented the DSB's recommendations. (34) United States Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Certain Hot-rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products Originating in the United Kingdom, complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS138/1). At the DSB meeting on 5 July 2000, the United States announced that it considered to have implemented the recommendations of the DSB with regard to the case concerning its countervailing duty order on certain hot-rolled lead and bismuth carbon steel products originating in the United Kingdom. (35)(a) Canada Certain Measures Affecting the Automotive Industry, complaint by Japan (WT/DS139/1). Pursuant to Article 21.3 of the DSU, Canada informed the DSB on 19 July 2000 that it would comply with the recommendations of the DSB. One of the recommendations made by the DSB was that Canada withdraw within 90 days the export subsidy found to be inconsistent with Article 3.1(a) of the Subsidies Agreement. On 4 August 2000, Japan and the European Communities requested, pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, that the reasonable period of time be determined by arbitration. The arbitrator determined that the "reasonable period of time" for Canada to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB relating to Article I:1 and Article III:4 of the GATT1994 and ArticleXVII of the GATS in this case is 8 months from the date of adoption of the Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report, as modified by the Appellate Body Report. The "reasonable period of time" will thus expire on 19 February 2001. At the DSB meeting of 12 March 2001, Canada stated that, as of 18 February 2001, it had complied with the DSB's recommendations. (35)(b) Canada Certain Measures Affecting the Automotive Industry, complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS142/1). See DS 139 above. (36) United States Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act, complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS160/1). Pursuant to Article 21.3 of the DSU, the US informed the DSB on 24 August 2000 that it would implement the recommendations of the DSB. The US proposed 15 months as a reasonable period of time within which to implement those recommendations. On 23 October 2000, the EC requested that the reasonable period of time for implementation be determined by means of binding arbitration as provided for in Article 21.3 (c) DSU. The Arbitrator circulated his Award on 15 January 2001. The Arbitrator determined that the reasonable period of time for the US to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this case is 12 months from the date of the adoption of the panel report. (37)(a) United States - Anti-Dumping Act of 1916, complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS136). At the DSB meeting of 23 October 2000, the US stated that it was its intention to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings. The US also stated that it would require a reasonable period of time for implementation and that it would consult with the EC and Japan on this matter. On 17 November 2000, the EC requested that the reasonable period of time be determined by arbitration pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU. The arbitrator circulated his report on 28 February 2001. He decided that the reasonable period of time in this case was 10 months and would thus expire on 26 July 2001. (37)(b) United States Anti-Dumping Act of 1916, complaint by Japan (WT/DS162/1). At the DSB meeting of 23 October 2000, the US stated that it was its intention to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings. The US also stated that it would require a reasonable period of time for implementation and that it would consult with the EC and Japan on this matter. On 17 November 2000, Japan requested that the reasonable period of time be determined by arbitration pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU. The arbitrator circulated his report on 28 February 2001. He decided that the reasonable period of time in this case was 10 months and would thus expire on 26 July 2001. (38) Canada Patent Protection Term, complaint by the United States (WT/DS170/1). At the DSB meeting of 23 October 2000, Canada stated that it was its intention to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings. Canada said that it would require a reasonable period of time for implementation and that it would consult with the United States on this matter. On 15 December 2000, the US requested that the reasonable period of time for implementation by Canada be determined by binding arbitration pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU. The arbitrator circulated his report on 28 February 2001. He decided that the reasonable period of time in this case was 10 months and would thus expire on 12 August 2001. (39) Guatemala - Definitive Anti-dumping Measure regarding Grey Portland Cement from Mexico, complaint by Mexico (WT/DS156). At the DSB meeting of 12 December 2000, in accordance with Article 21.3 of the DSU, Guatemala informed the DSB that in October2000 it had removed its anti-dumping measure and had thus complied with the DSB's recommendations. Mexico welcomed Guatemala's implementation in this case. (40)(a) Korea Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled, and Frozen Beef, complaint by the United States (WT/DS161/1). At the DSB meeting of 2 February 2001, Korea announced that it had already implemented some elements of the DSB's recommendations and that in order to complete the process it would need a reasonable period of time. On 19 April 2001, the parties to the dispute notified the DSB that they had mutually agreed that the reasonable period of time shall be 8 months, and shall thus expire on 10 September 2001. (40)(b) Korea Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled, and Frozen Beef, complaint by Australia (WT/DS169/1). See DS161 above. (41) United States Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Wheat Gluten from the European Communities, complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS166/1). At the DSB meeting of 16 February 2001, the US announced that it intended to implement the recommendations and rulings contained in the panel and Appellate Body reports. On 20 March 2001, the EC requested that the reasonable period of time for implementation be determined by binding arbitration pursuant to Article 21.3(c) DSU. On 10 April 2001, the parties to the dispute notified the DSB that they had mutually agreed that the reasonable period of time shall be four months and 14 days, that is from 19 January 2001 to 2 June 2001. (42) United States Anti-Dumping Measures on Stainless Steel Plate in Coils and Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from Korea, complaint by Korea (WT/DS179). At the DSB meeting of 1 March 2001, the US stated its intention to implement the DSB's recommendations and indicated that it would need a reasonable period of time to do so. on 26 April 2001, the parties to the dispute notified the DSB that they had mutually agreed that the reasonable period of time shall be 7 months and shall thus expire on 1 September 2001. (43) Argentina - Measures on the Export of Bovine Hides and the Import of Finished Leather, complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS155). At the DSB meeting of 12 March 2001, Argentina stated its intention to implement the DSB's recommendations and indicated that it would need a reasonable period of time to do so. On 14 May 2001, the EC requested that the reasonable period of time be determined through binding arbitration pursuant to Article 21.3(c). (44) European Communities Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Cotton-Type Bed-Linen from India, complaint by India (WT/DS141/1). At the DSB meeting of 5 April 2001, the EC announced its intention to implement the DSB's recommendations in this case and said that it would need a reasonable period of time to do so. India said that the EC could complete its implementation process within a very short period of time. On 26 April 2001, the parties to the dispute notified the DSB that they had mutually agreed that the reasonable period of time shall be five months and two days, that is from 12 March 2001 until 14 August 2001. (45) Thailand - Anti-Dumping Duties on Angles, Shapes and Sections of Iron or Non-Alloy Steel; H-Beams from Poland, complaint by Poland (WT/DS122/1). Thailand said that it was in the process of identifying the most suitable way to comply with the DSB's recommendations in this case and that it would need a reasonable period of time for implementation. Poland reiterated its position that in order to implement the DSB's recommendations in this case Thailand would have to revoke the duties currently in place. If not, Poland would seek recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU. Poland was ready to enter into consultations with Thailand on a reasonable period of time for implementation. On 25 May 2001, the parties to the dispute informed the DSB that they had agreed that the reasonable period of time shall be 6 months and 15 days and shall expire on 20 October 2001. (46)(a) United States Safeguard Measure on Imports of Fresh, Chilled or Frozen Lamb from New Zealand, complaint by New Zealand (WT/DS177/1). At the DSB meeting of 20 June 2001, the US recalled that on 14 June 2001 it had submitted in writing to the DSB its intentions with respect to the implementation in this case and said that it intended to implement the DSB's recommendations in a manner that would respect its ϲʹ obligations. The US further stated that it would need a reasonable period of time for implementation and, for that reason, it would enter into discussions with the complaining parties. (46)(b) United States Safeguard Measure on Imports of Fresh, Chilled or Frozen Lamb from Australia, complaint by Australia (WT/DS178/1). See DS177 above. Appellate and Panel Reports Adopted Since 1 January 2001 (1)(a) Korea Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled, and Frozen Beef, complaint by the United States (WT/DS161/1). This dispute, dated 1 February 1999, is in respect of an alleged Korean regulatory scheme that discriminates against imported beef by inter alia, confining sales of imported beef to specialised stores (dual retail system), limiting the manner of its display, and otherwise constraining the opportunities for the sale of imported beef. The United States also alleges that Korea imposes a markup on sales of imported beef, limits import authority to certain so-called "super-groups" and the Livestock Producers Marketing Organization ("LPMO"), and provides domestic support to the cattle industry in Korea in amounts which cause Korea to exceed its aggregate measure of support as reflected in Korea's schedule. The United States contends that these restrictions apply only to imported beef, thereby denying national treatment to beef imports, and that the support to the domestic industry amounts to domestic subsidies that contravene the Agreement on Agriculture. The United States alleges violations of Articles II, III, XI, and XVII of GATT 1994; Articles 3, 4, 6, and 7 of the Agreement on Agriculture; and Articles 1 and 3 of the Import Licensing Agreement. On 15April 1999, the United States requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 26May1999, the DSB established a panel. Australia, Canada and New Zealand reserved their third-party rights. The report of the panel was circulated to Members on 31 July 2000. The panel first found that a number of the contested Korean measures benefited, by virtue of a Note in Korea's Schedule of Concessions, from a transitional period until 1 January 2001, by which date they had to be eliminated or otherwise brought into conformity with the ϲʹ Agreement. The panel then went on to find that the requirement that the supply of beef from the LPMO's wholesale market be limited to specialised imported beef stores and that those stores bear a special sign "Specialized Imported Beef Store" was in violation of Article III:4 of the GATT 1994, which violation could not be justified under Article XX(d) of the GATT 1994. The panel further found that the more stringent record-keeping requirements imposed on purchasers of imported beef were also inconsistent with Article III:4. Certain other regulations dealing with the importation and distribution of imported beef were likewise found to violate Article III:4. The panel also found that the LPMO's lack of and delays in calling for tenders and its discharge practices between November 1997 and the end of May 1998 constituted import restrictions contrary to Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994 and Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. Moreover, the LPMO's calls for tenders that were made subject to distinctions between grass-fed and grain-fed cattle, constituted, in the view of the panel, a restriction inconsistent with Article XI:1. They also treated imports of beef from grass-fed cattle less favourably than provided for in Korea's Schedule, which was in breach of Article II:1(a) of the GATT 1994. The panel found, in addition, that Korea's domestic support for beef for 1997 and 1998 was not correctly calculated and exceeded the de minimis level, contrary to Article 6 of the Agreement on Agriculture, and was not included in Korea's Current Total AMS, contrary to Article 7.2(a) of the Agreement on Agriculture. Finally, Korea's total domestic support (Current Total AMS) for 1997 and 1998 exceeded Korea's commitment levels, as specified in Section 1, Part IV of its Schedule, contrary to Article 3.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. On 11 September 2000, Korea notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed by the panel. On 11 December 2000, the report of the Appellate Body was circulated. The Appellate Body reversed the Panel's finding on recalculated amounts of Korea's domestic support for beef in 1997 and 1998, as the Panel used, for these recalculations, a methodology inconsistent with Article 1(a)(ii) and Annex 3 of the Agreement on Agriculture; and reversed, therefore, the Panel's following conclusions, based on these recalculated amounts: (i)that Korea's domestic support for beef in 1997 and 1998 exceeded the deminimis level contrary to Article 6 of theAgreement on Agriculture; (ii) that Korea's failure to include Current AMS for beef in Korea's Current Total AMS was contrary to Article 7.2(a) of that Agreement; and (iii) that Korea's total domestic support for1997 and 1998 exceeded Korea's commitment levels contrary to Article3.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. The Appellate Body was unable, in view of the insufficient factual findings made by the Panel, to complete the legal analysis of: (i) whether Korea's domestic support for beef exceeds the deminimis level contrary to Article 6 of the Agreement on Agriculture; (ii) whether the failure to include Current AMS for beef in Korea's Current Total AMS was contrary to Article 7.2(a) of that Agreement; and (iii) whether Korea's total domestic support for 1997 and 1998 exceeded Korea's commitment levels contrary to Article3.2 of theAgreement on Agriculture. At its meeting of 10 January 2001, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body report. (1)(b) Korea Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh, Chilled, and Frozen Beef, complaint by Australia (WT/DS169/1). This request, dated 13 April 1999, is on the same basis as the US request in DS161. On 12 July 1999, Australia requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 26July1999, the DSB established a panel. Canada, New Zealand and the United States reserved their third-party rights. At the request of Korea, the DSB agreed that, pursuant to DSU Article 9.1, this complaint would be examined by the same panel established in respect of DS161 above. (2) United States Import Measures on Certain Products from the European Communities, complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS165/1). This request, dated 4 March 1999, is in respect of the US decision, effective as of 3 March 1999, to withhold liquidation on imports from the EC of a series of products together valued at over $500 million on an annual basis, and to impose a contingent liability for 100% duties on each individual importation of affected products. On 2 March 1999, the arbitrators charged with determining the level of suspension of concessions, requested by the United States in response to the failure by the EC to implement the recommendations of the DSB in respect of the EC's banana regime (DS27), had asked for additional data from the parties and informed the parties that they were unable to issue their report within the 60-day period envisaged by the DSU. The EC contends that the measure made effective by the United States as of 3 March 1999 deprives EC imports into the United States, of the products in question, of the right to a duty not in excess of the rate bound in the US Schedule. The EC further contends that, by requiring the deposit of a bond to cover the contingent liability for 100% duties, US Customs effectively impose 100% duties on each individual importation. The EC alleges violations of Articles3, 21, 22 and 23 of the DSU, and Articles I, II, VIII and XI of GATT 1994. The EC also alleges nullification and impairment of benefits under GATT 1994, as well as the impediment of the objectives of the DSU and GATT 1994. The EC had requested urgent consultations pursuant to Article 4.8 of the DSU. On 11 May 1999, the EC requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 16 June 1999, the DSB established a panel. Dominica, Ecuador, India, Jamaica, Japan and St.Lucia reserved their third party rights. The report of the panel was circulated to Members on 17 July 2000. The panel found that the US measure of 3 March 1999 was seeking to redress a ϲʹ violation and was thus covered by Article 23.1 of the DSU. In the view of the panel, by putting into place that measure prior to the time authorized by the DSB, the United States made a unilateral determination that the revised EC bananas regime in respect of its bananas import, sales and distribution regime violated ϲʹ rules, contrary to Articles 23.2(a) and 21.5, first sentence, of the DSU. In doing so, the United States did not abide by the DSU and thus also violated Article 23.1 together with Article 23.2(a) and 21.5 of the DSU. The panel further found that the increased bonding requirements of the measure of 3 March 1999 as such led to violations of Articles II:1(a) and II:1(b), first sentence (one panelist dissented, considering that those requirements rather violated Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994); the increased interest charges, costs and fees resulting from the 3 March Measure violated Article II:1(b), last sentence. The measure in question also violated Article I of the GATT 1994. In light of these conclusions, the measure of 3 March 1999 constituted a suspension of concessions or other obligations within the meaning of Articles 3.7, 22.6 and 23.2(c) of the DSU imposed without DSB authorization and during the ongoing Article 22.6 arbitration process. In suspending concessions in those circumstances, the United States did not abide by the DSU and thus violated Article 23.1 together with Articles 3.7, 22.6 and 23.2(c) of the DSU. On 12 September 2000, the EC notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed by the panel. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated on 11 December 2000. The Appellate Body concluded that the Panel erred by stating that the ϲʹ-consistency of a measure taken by a Member to comply with recommendations and rulings of the DSB can be determined by arbitrators appointed under Article22.6 of the DSU, and, thus, concluded that the Panel's statements on this issue have no legal effect. It also concluded that the Panel erred by stating that "[o]nce a Member imposes DSB authorised suspensions of concessions or obligations, that Member's measure is ϲʹ compatible (it was explicitly authorised by the DSB)", and, thus, concluded that this statement has no legal effect. The Appellate Body also reversed the Panel's findings that the increased bonding requirements are inconsistent with ArticlesII:1(a) and II:2(b), first sentence, of the GATT 1994, and reversed the Panel's finding that, by adopting the 3 March Measure, the United States acted inconsistently with Article23.2(a) of the DSU. As it upheld the Panel's finding that the 3 March Measure, the measure at issue in this dispute, is no longer in existence, the Appellate Body did not make any recommendation to the DSB pursuant to Article19.1 of the DSU. At its meeting of 10 January 2001, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body report. (3) United States Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Wheat Gluten from the European Communities, complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS166/1). This request, dated 17March 1999, is in respect of definitive safeguard measures imposed by the United States on imports of wheat gluten from the European Communities. The EC contends that by a Proclamation of 30 May 1998, and a Memorandum of the same date, by the US President, under which the UnitedStates imposed definitive safeguard measures in the form of a quantitative limitation on imports of wheat gluten from the EC, effective as of 1 June 1998. The EC considers these measures to be in violation of Articles 2, 4, 5 and 12 of the Agreement on Safeguards; Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture; and Articles I and XIX of GATT 1994. On 3 June 1999, the EC requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 26 July 1999, the DSB established a panel. Australia and New Zealand reserved their third-party rights. The report of the panel was circulated to Members on 31 July 2000. The panel found that the United States had not acted inconsistently with Articles 2.1 and 4 of the Safeguards Agreement or with Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994 in (i) redacting certain confidential information from the published USITC Report or (ii) determining the existence of imports in "increased quantities" and serious injury. The panel found, however, that the definitive safeguard measure imposed by the United States on certain imports of wheat gluten based on the US investigation and determination was inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4 of the Safeguards Agreement in that (i) the causation analysis applied by the USITC did not ensure that injury caused by other factors was not attributed to imports and (ii) imports from Canada (a NAFTA partner) were excluded from the application of the measure after imports from all sources were included in the investigation for the purposes of determining serious injury caused by increased imports (following a separate inquiry concerning whether imports from Canada accounted for a "substantial share" of total imports and whether they "contributed importantly" to the "serious injury" caused by total imports). The panel further concluded that the United States failed to notify immediately the initiation of the investigation under Article 12.1(a) and the finding of serious injury under Article 12.1(b) of the Safeguards Agreement. The panel also concluded that, in notifying its decision to take the measure only after the measure was implemented, the United States did not make timely notification under Article 12.1(c). For the same reason, the United States violated the obligation of Article 12.3 to provide adequate opportunity for prior consultations on the measure. In the view of the panel, the United States therefore also violated its obligation under Article 8.1 of the Safeguards Agreement to endeavour to maintain a substantially equivalent level of concessions and other obligations to that existing under the GATT 1994 between it and the exporting Members which would be affected by such measures, in accordance with Article 12.3 of the Safeguards Agreement. On 26 September 2000, the US notified its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law and legal interpretation covered in the Panel Report and certain legal interpretations developed by the Panel. The Appellate Body circulated its report on 22 December 2000. The Appellate Body (1) upheld the Panel's conclusion that the US had not acted inconsistently with its obligations under Articles 4.2(a) and 4.2(b) of the Safeguards Agreement, but, in so doing, reversed the Panel's interpretation of Article 4.2(a) of the Safeguards Agreement that the competent authorities are required to evaluate only the "relevant factors" listed in Article 4.2(a) of that Agreement as well as any other "factors" which were clearly raised before the competent authorities as relevant by the interested parties in the domestic investigation; (2) reversed the Panel's interpretation of Article 4.2(b) of theSafeguards Agreement that increased imports "alone", "in and of themselves", or "perse", must be capable of causing "serious injury", as well as the Panel's conclusions on the issue of causation; (3) found, nonetheless, that the US had acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 4.2(b) of the Safeguards Agreement; (4) upheld the Panel's finding that the US had acted inconsistently with its obligations under Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Safeguards Agreement; (5) upheld the Panel's findings that the US had acted inconsistently with its obligations under Articles 12.1(a) and 12.1(b) of the Safeguards Agreement; (6) reversed the Panel's finding that the US had acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 12.1(c) of theSafeguards Agreement; found that the US had acted consistently with its obligations under Article 12.1(c) of that Agreement to notify "immediately" its decision to apply a safeguard measure; (7) upheld the Panel's finding that the US had acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 12.3 of theSafeguards Agreement, and, in consequence, upheld the Panel's finding that the US had acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 8.1 of the Safeguards Agreement; (8) found that the Panel did not act inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU in concluding that the USITC had "considered industry productivity as required by Article 4.2(a)" of the Safeguards Agreement; (ii) in finding that the USITC was not required to evaluate the overall relationship between the protein content of wheat and the price of wheat gluten as a "relevant factor", under Article 4.2(a) of the Safeguards Agreement, during the post-1994 period of investigation; and, (iii) in declining to draw "adverse" inferences from the refusal of the United States to provide certain allegedly confidential information requested from it by the Panel under Article 13.1 of the DSU; (9) found that the Panel acted inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU in finding that "the USITC Report provides an adequate, reasoned and reasonable explanation with respect to 'profits and losses'" and, therefore, reversed this finding; and found no error in the Panel's exercise of judicial economy in not examining the claims of the EC under Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994, and also under Article 5 of the Safeguards Agreement and Article I of the GATT 1994. At its meeting of 19 January 2001, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body report. (4) United States Anti-Dumping Measures on Stainless Steel Plate in Coils and Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from Korea, complaint by Korea (WT/DS179). This request, dated 30 July 1999, is in respect of Preliminary and Final Determinations of the United States Department of Commerce (DOC) on Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Korea dated 4 November 1998 and 31March1999 respectively, and Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from Korea dated 20 January 1999 and 8 June 1999 respectively. Korea considers that several errors were made by the United States in those determinations which resulted in erroneous findings and deficient conclusions as well as the imposition, calculation and collection of anti-dumping margins which are incompatible with the obligation of the United States under the provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI of GATT1994 and in particular, but not necessarily exclusively, Article 2, Article 6 and Article 12 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. Korea believes that the United States did not act in conformity with the cited provisions, among others, in its treatment of the following: certain US sales made to a bankrupt company; the calculation of two distinct exchange rate periods for export sales; and currency conversion for certain normal value sales made in US dollars. On 14 October, Korea requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 19 November 1999, the DSB established a panel. The EC and Japan reserved their third-party rights. The panel circulated its report on 22 December 2000. The panel concluded that, with respect to "local sales": (a) the US in the Plate investigation did not act inconsistently with its obligations under Article 2.4.1, Article 2.4 chapeau ("fair comparison"), and Article12.2 of the ADAgreement nor with its obligations under Article X:3(a) of GATT 1994; (b) the US in the Sheet investigation acted inconsistently with Article 2.4.1 of the AD Agreement by performing a currency conversion that was not required. The panel further concluded that, with respect to the treatment of unpaid sales, the US: (a) acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 2.4 chapeau of the AD Agreement in both the Plate and Sheet investigations by making allowances in respect of sales through unaffiliated importers which were not permissible allowances for differences affecting price comparability; (b) acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 2.4 chapeau of the AD Agreement in both the Plate and Sheet investigations by making allowances in respect of sales through an affiliated importer which were not permissible allowances in the construction of the export price for costs incurred between importation and resale. With respect to multiple averaging, the panel concluded that: (a) the US' use of multiple averaging periods in the Plate and Sheet investigations was inconsistent with the requirement of Article 2.4.2 to compare "a weighted average normal value with a weighted average of all comparable export transactions"; (b) the US' use of multiple averaging periods in the Plate and Sheet investigations was not inconsistent with Article 2.4.1 of the AD Agreement; (c) the US' use of multiple averaging periods in the Plate and Sheet investigations was not inconsistent with the first sentence of the chapeau of Article 2.4 of the AD Agreement ("fair comparison"). The panel concluded that, to the extent that the US has acted inconsistently with the provisions of the AD Agreement, it has nullified or impaired benefits accruing to Korea under that Agreement. At its meeting of 1 February 2001, the DSB adopted the panel report. (5) Argentina - Measures on the Export of Bovine Hides and the Import of Finished Leather, complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS155). This request, dated 24 December 1998, concerns certain measures taken by Argentina on the export of bovine hides and the import of finished leather. The EC alleges that the de facto export prohibition on raw and semi-tanned bovine hides (which is implemented in part through the authorization granted by the Argentinian authorities to the Argentinian tanning industry to participate in customs control procedures of hides before export)is in violation of GATT Articles; XI:1 (which outlaws de jure export prohibitions and measures of equivalent effect); and X:3(a) (which requires uniform and impartial administration of laws and regulations) to the extent that personnel of the Argentinian Chamber for the tanning industry are authorized to assist Argentinian customs authorities. The EC also claims that the "additional value added tax" of 9 per cent on imports of products into Argentina; and the "advance turnover tax" of 3per cent based on the price of imported goods imposed on operators when importing goods into Argentina; are in violation of GATT Article III:2 (which prohibits tax discrimination of foreign products which are like, directly competitive or substitutable to domestic products). On 3 June 1999, the EC requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 26 July 1999, the DSB established a panel. The panel circulated its report on 19 December 2000. The panel concluded that: (1) it has not been proved that Resolution (ANA) No. 2235/96 is inconsistent with Argentina's obligations under ArticleXI:1 of the GATT 1994; (2) Resolution (ANA) No. 2235/96 is inconsistent with Argentina's obligations under ArticleX:3(a) of the GATT 1994; (3) General Resolution (DGI) No.3431/91 is inconsistent with ArticleIII:2, first sentence, of the GATT 1994; (4) General Resolution (DGI) No.3543/92 is inconsistent with ArticleIII:2, first sentence, of the GATT 1994; (5) General Resolutions (DGI) No.3431/91 and 3543/92, although they fall within the terms of paragraph (d) of ArticleXX of the GATT 1994, fail to meet the requirements of the chapeau of ArticleXX and are therefore not justified under ArticleXX as a whole; (6) there is nullification or impairment of the benefits accruing to the European Communities under the GATT 1994. At its meeting of 16 February 2001, the DSB adopted the panel report. (6) European Communities Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Cotton-Type Bed-Linen from India, complaint by India (WT/DS141/1). This request, dated 3 August 1998, is in respect of Commission Regulation (EC) N 2398/97 of 28 November 1997 on imports of cotton-type bed-linen from India. India asserts that the EC initiated anti-dumping proceedings against the import of cotton- type bed-linen from India by publishing a notice of initiation in September 1996. Provisional anti-dumping duties were imposed by EC Commission Regulation N 1069/97 of 12 June 1997. This was followed by the imposition of final duties in accordance with the above-mentioned EC Council Regulation of 28 November 1997. India contends that the determination of standing, the initiation, the determination of dumping and injury as well as the explanations of the EC authorities' findings are inconsistent with ϲʹ law. India is also of the view that EC authorities' establishment of the facts was not proper and that the EC's evaluation of facts was not unbiased and objective. India also contends that the EC has not taken into account the special situation of India as a developing country. India alleges violations of Articles 2.2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.8, 6, 12.2.2, and 15 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, and Articles I and VI of the GATT 1994. On 7 September 1999, India requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 27 October 1999, the DSB established a panel. Egypt, Japan and the US reserved their third-party rights. The panel report was circulated on 30 October 2000. The panel concluded that the European Communities did not act inconsistently with its obligations under Articles2.2, 2.2.2, 3.1, 3.4, 3.5, 5.3, 5.4, and 12.2.2 of the ADAgreement in: (a) calculating the amount for profit in constructing normal value; (b) considering all imports from India (and Egypt and Pakistan) as dumped in the analysis of injury caused by dumped imports; (c) considering information for producers comprising the domestic industry but not among the sampled producers in analyzing the state of the industry; (d) examining the accuracy and adequacy of the evidence prior to initiation; (e) establishing industry support for the application; and (f) providing public notice of its final determination. The panel, however, also concluded that the European Communities acted inconsistently with its obligations under Articles2.4.2, 3.4, and 15 of the ADAgreement in: (a) determining the existence of margins of dumping on the basis of a methodology incorporating the practice of zeroing; (b) failing to evaluate all relevant factors having a bearing on the state of the domestic industry, and specifically all the factors set forth in Article3.4; (c) considering information for producers not part of the domestic industry as defined by the investigating authority in analyzing the state of the industry; and (d) failing to explore possibilities of constructive remedies before applying anti-dumping duties. On 1 December 2000, the EC notified the DSB of its intention to appeal certain issues of law covered in the Panel Report and legal interpretations developed by the Panel. The Appellate Body circulated its report on 1 March 2001. The Appellate Body (1) upheld the finding of the Panel that the practice of "zeroing" when establishing "the existence of margins of dumping", as applied by the EC in the anti-dumping investigation at issue in this dispute, is inconsistent with Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; and (2) reversed the findings of the Panel that: (a) the method for calculating amounts for administrative, selling and general costs and profits provided for in Article2.2.2(ii) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement may be applied where there is data on administrative, selling and general costs and profits for only one other exporter or producer; and (b) in calculating the amount for profits under Article 2.2.2(ii) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, a Member may exclude sales by other exporters or producers that are not made in the ordinary course of trade; and (3), as a consequence, concluded that the EC, in calculating amounts for administrative, selling and general costs and profits in the anti-dumping investigation at issue in this dispute, acted inconsistently with Article2.2.2(ii) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. At its meeting of 12 March 2001, the DSB adopted the panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body report. (7) Thailand - Anti-Dumping Duties on Angles, Shapes and Sections of Iron or Non-Alloy Steel; H-Beams from Poland, complaint by Poland (WT/DS122/1). This request, dated 6 April 1998, concerns the imposition of final anti-dumping duties on imports of these products. Poland alleges that provisional anti-dumping duties were imposed by Thailand on 27 December 1996, and a final anti-dumping duty of 27.78% of CIF value for these products, produced or exported by any Polish producer or exporter, was imposed on 26 May 1997. Poland further alleges that Thailand refused two requests by Poland for disclosure of findings. Poland contends that these actions by Thailand violate Articles 2, 3, 5 and 6 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. On 13 October 1999, Poland requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 19 November 1999, the DSB established a panel. The EC, Japan and the US reserved their third-party rights. The report was circulated to Members on 28 September 2000. The Panel concluded that Poland failed to establish that Thailand had acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement or Article VI of the GATT 1994 in the calculation of the amount for profit in constructing normal value. The Panel also concluded, however, that Thailand's imposition of the definitive anti-dumping measure on imports of H-beams from Poland is inconsistent with the requirements of Article3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement in that: (1) inconsistently with the second sentence of Article 3.2 and Article 3.1, the Thai authorities did not consider, on the basis of an "objective examination" of "positive evidence" in the disclosed factual basis, the price effects of dumped imports; (b) inconsistently with Articles 3.4 and 3.1, the Thai investigating authorities failed to consider certain factors listed in Article 3.4, and failed to provide an adequate explanation of how the determination of injury could be reached on the basis of an "unbiased or objective evaluation" or an "objective examination" of "positive evidence" in the disclosed factual basis; and (c) inconsistently with Articles 3.5 and 3.1, the Thai authorities made a determination of a causal relationship between dumped imports and any possible injury on the basis of (i) their findings concerning the price effects of dumped imports, which the Panel had already found to be inconsistent with the second sentence of Article 3.2 and Article 3.1; and (ii) their findings concerning injury, which the Panel had already found to be inconsistent with Article 3.4 and 3.1. Finally, the Panel concluded that, under Article3.8 of the DSU, in cases where there is infringement of the obligations assumed under a covered agreement, the action is considered prima facie to constitute a case of nullification or impairment of benefits under that agreement, and that, accordingly, to the extent Thailand has acted inconsistently with the provisions of the ADAgreement, it has nullified or impaired benefits accruing to Poland under that Agreement. On 23 October 2000, Thailand notified the Dispute Settlement Body of its decision to appeal certain issues of law covered in the Panel Report and legal interpretations developed by the Panel. The Appellate Body circulated its report on 12 March 2001. The Appellate Body (a) upheld the Panel's finding that the panel request submitted by Poland with respect to claims relating to Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement was sufficient to meet the requirements of Article 6.2 of the DSU; (b) reversed the Panel's interpretation that Article 3.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement requires that "the reasoning supporting the determination be 'formally or explicitly stated' in documents in the record of the AD investigation to which interested parties (and/or their legal counsel) have access at least from the time of the final determination", and that "the factual basis relied upon by the authorities must be discernible from those documents"; (c) reversed the Panel's interpretation that Article 17.6(i) requires a Panel reviewing an injury determination under Article 3.1, in its assessment of whether the establishment of the facts is proper, to ascertain whether the "factual basis" of the determination is "discernible" from the documents that were available to the interested parties and/or their legal counsel in the course of the investigation and at the time of the final determination; and, in its assessment of whether the evaluation of the facts is unbiased and objective, to examine the analysis and reasoning in only those documents to ascertain the connection between the "disclosed factual basis" and the findings; (d) upheld the Panel's interpretation that Article 3.4 requires a mandatory evaluation of all of the factors listed in that provision, and that, therefore, the Panel did not err in its application of the standard of review under Article 17.6(ii) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; (e) left undisturbed the Panel's findings of violation under Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.4 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; and (f) concluded that the Panel did not err in its application of the burden of proof, and in the application of the standard of review under Article 17.6(i) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. At its meeting of 5 April 2001, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body report. (8) European Communities - Measures Affecting the Prohibition of Asbestos and Asbestos Products, complaint by Canada (WT/DS135). This request, dated 28 May 1998, is in respect of measures imposed by France, in particular Decree of 24 December 1996, with respect to the prohibition of asbestos and products containing asbestos, including a ban on imports of such goods. Canada alleges that these measures violate Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the SPS Agreement, Article 2 of the TBT Agreement, and Articles III, XI and XIII of GATT 1994. Canada also alleges nullification and impairment of benefits accruing to it under the various agreements cited. On 8 October 1998, Canada requested the establishment of a panel. The DSB established a panel at its meeting on 25November1998. The US reserved its third-party rights. The report of the panel was circulated to Members on 18 September 2000. The Panel found that the "prohibition" part of the Decree of 24 December 1996 does not fall within the scope of the TBT Agreement. The part of the Decree relating to "exceptions" does fall within the scope of the TBT Agreement. However, as Canada had not made any claim concerning the compatibility with the TBT Agreement of the part of the Decree relating to exceptions, the Panel refrained from reaching any conclusion with regard to the latter. The Panel then found that chrysotile asbestos fibres as such and fibres that can be substituted for them as such are like products within the meaning of Article III:4 of the GATT 1994. Similarly, the Panel concluded that the asbestos-cement products and the fibro-cement products for which sufficient information had been submitted to the Panel are like products within the meaning of Article III:4 of the GATT 1994. With respect to the products found to be like, the Panel found that the Decree violates Article III:4 of the GATT 1994. However, the Panel concluded that the Decree, insofar as it introduces a treatment of these products that is discriminatory under Article III:4, is justified as such and in its implementation by the provisions of paragraph (b) and the introductory clause of Article XX of the GATT1994. Finally, the Panel concluded that Canada has not established that it suffered non-violation nullification or impairment of a benefit within the meaning of Article XXIII:1(b) of the GATT 1994. On 23 October 2000, Canada notified the Dispute Settlement Body of its decision to appeal certain issues of law covered in the Panel Report and legal interpretations developed by the Panel. The Appellate Body circulated its report on 12 March 2001. The Appellate Body (a) reversed the Panel's finding that the TBTAgreement "does not apply to the part of the Decree relating to the ban on imports of asbestos and asbestos-containing products because that part does not constitute a 'technical regulation' within the meaning of Annex 1.1 to the TBTAgreement", and found that the measure, viewed as an integrated whole, does constitute a "technical regulation" under the TBT Agreement; (b) reversed the Panel's findings that "it is not appropriate" to take into consideration the health risks associated with chrysotile asbestos fibres in examining the "likeness", under Article III:4 of the GATT 1994, of those fibres and PCG fibres, and, also, in examining the "likeness", under that provision, of cement-based products containing chrysotile asbestos fibres or PCG fibres; (c) reversed the Panel's finding that chrysotile asbestos fibres and PCG fibres are "like products" under Article III:4 of the GATT1994; and found that Canada has not satisfied its burden of proving that these fibres are "like products" under that provision; (d) reversed the Panel's finding that cement-based products containing chrysotile asbestos fibres and cement-based products containing PCG fibres are "like products" under Article III:4 of the GATT 1994; and found that Canada has not satisfied its burden of proving that these cement-based products are "like products" under Article III:4 of the GATT 1994; (e) reversed, in consequence, the Panel's finding that the measure is inconsistent with Article III:4 of the GATT 1994; (f) upheld the Panel's finding that the measure at issue is "necessary to protect human life or health", within the meaning of Article XX(b) of the GATT 1994; and, found that the Panel acted consistently with Article 11 of the DSU in reaching this conclusion; (g) upheld the Panel's finding that the measure may give rise to a cause of action under Article XXIII:1(b) of the GATT1994. At its meeting of 5 April 2001, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body report. (9)(a) United States Safeguard Measure on Imports of Fresh, Chilled or Frozen Lamb from New Zealand, complaint by New Zealand (WT/DS177/1). This request, dated 16 July 1999, is in respect of a safeguard measure imposed by the United States on imports of lamb meat from New Zealand. New Zealand alleges that by Presidential Proclamation under Section 203 of the USTradeAct 1974, the United States imposed a definitive safeguard measure in the form of a tariff-rate quota on imports fresh, chilled, or frozen lamb meat effective from 22 July 1999. New Zealand contends that this measure is inconsistent with Articles 2, 4, 5, 11 and 12 of the Agreement on Safeguards, and Articles I and XIX of GATT 1994. On 14 October 1999, New Zealand requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 19 November 1999, the DSB established a panel. The DSB agreed that, pursuant to Article 9.1 of the DSU, this complaint would be examined by the same panel established in respect of DS178. Canada, the EC, Iceland and Japan reserved their third-party rights. Australia reserved its third-party rights in relation to the complaint by New Zealand, while New Zealand reserved its third-party rights in relation to the complaint by Australia. The panel circulated its report on 21 December 2000. The panel concluded that: (1) the US has acted inconsistently with ArticleXIX:1(a) of GATT 1994 by failing to demonstrate as a matter of fact the existence of "unforeseen developments"; (2) the US has acted inconsistently with Article 4.1(c) of the Agreement on Safeguards because the USITC, in the lamb meat investigation, defined the domestic industry as including input producers as producers of the like product at issue (i.e. lamb meat); (3) the complainants failed to establish that the USITC's analytical approach to determining the existence of a threat of serious injury, in particular with respect to the prospective analysis and the time-period used, is inconsistent with Article 4.1(b) of the Agreement on Safeguards; (4) the complainants failed to establish that the USITC's analytical approach to evaluating all of the factors listed in Article 4.2(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards when determining whether increased imports threatened to cause serious injury with respect to the domestic industry as defined in the investigation is inconsistent with that provision; (5) the US has acted inconsistently with Article 4.1(c) of the Agreement on Safeguards because the USITC failed to obtain data in respect of producers representing a major proportion of the total domestic production by the domestic industry as defined in the investigation; (6) the US has acted inconsistently with Article 4.2(b) of the Agreement on Safeguards because the USITC's determination in the lamb meat investigation in respect of causation did not demonstrate the required causal link between increased imports and threat of serious injury, in that the determination did not establish that increased imports were by themselves a necessary and sufficient cause of threat of serious injury, and in that the determination did not ensure that threat of serious injury caused by "other factors" was not attributed to increased imports; (7) by virtue of the above violations of Article 4 of the Agreement on Safeguards, the US also has acted inconsistently with Article 2.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards. On 31 January 2001, the US notified the DSB of its intention to appeal certain issues of law covered in the Panel Report and legal interpretations developed by the Panel. The Appellate Body circulated its report on 1 May 2001. The Appellate Body: (a) upheld the Panel's finding that the US acted inconsistently with Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994 by failing to demonstrate, as a matter of fact, the existence of "unforeseen developments"; (b) upheld the Panel's finding that the United States acted inconsistently with Articles 2.1 and 4.1(c) of the Agreement on Safeguards because the USITC defined the relevant "domestic industry" to include growers and feeders of live lambs; (c) upheld the Panel's finding that the USITC made a determination regarding the "domestic industry" on the basis of data that was not sufficiently representative of that industry; but modified the Panel's ultimate finding that the US thereby acted inconsistently with Articles 2.1 and 4.1(c) of the Agreement on Safeguards by finding, instead, that the United States thereby acted inconsistently with Articles 2.1 and 4.2(a) of that Agreement; (d) found that the Panel correctly interpreted the standard of review, set forth in Article11 of the DSU, which is appropriate to its examination of claims made under Article4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards; but concluded that the Panel erred in applying that standard in examining the claims made concerning the USITC's determination that there existed a threat of serious injury; and found, moreover, that the US acted inconsistently with Articles 2.1 and 4.2(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards because the USITC Report did not explain adequately the determination that there existed a threat of serious injury to the domestic industry; (e) reversed the Panel's interpretation of the causation requirements in the Agreement on Safeguards but, for different reasons, upheld the Panel's ultimate finding that the US acted inconsistently with Articles 2.1 and 4.2(b) of the Agreement because the USITC's determination that there existed a causal link between increased imports and a threat of serious injury did not ensure that injury caused to the domestic industry, by factors other than increased imports, was not attributed to those imports; (f) upheld the Panel's exercise of judicial economy in declining to rule on the claim of New Zealand under Article 5.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards; and, (g) declined to rule on the respective conditional appeals of Australia and New Zealand relating to Articles I, II and XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994, and to Articles2.2, 3.1, 5.1, 8.1, 11.1(a) and12.3 of the Agreement on Safeguards. At its meeting of 16 May 2001, the DSB adopted the panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body report. (9)(b) United States Safeguard Measure on Imports of Lamb Meat from Australia, complaint by Australia (WT/DS178/1). This request, dated 23 July 1999, in respect of a definitive safeguard measure imposed by the UnitedStates on imports of lamb. Australia alleges that by Presidential Proclamation under Section 203 of the USTradeAct1974, the United States imposed a definitive safeguard measure in the form of a tariff-rate quota on imports of fresh, chilled, or frozen lamb meat from Australia effective from 22July1999. Australia contends that this measure is inconsistent with Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 11 and 12 of the Agreement on Safeguards, and Articles I, II and XIX of GATT 1994. On 14 October 1999, Australia requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 19November 1999, the DSB established a panel. The DSB agreed that, pursuant to Article 9.1 of the DSU, this complaint would be examined by the same panel established in respect of DS177. Canada, the EC, Iceland and Japan reserved their third-party rights. See DS177 above. Appellate Body Reports Issued Panel Reports Appealed (1) United States Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Products from Japan, complaint by Japan (DS184/1). This request, dated 18 November 1999, is in respect of the preliminary and final determinations of the US Department of Commerce and the US International Trade Commission on the anti-dumping investigation of Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Products from Japan issued on 25 and 30 November 1998, 12 February 1999, 28 April 1999 and 23 June 1999. Japan considers that these determinations are erroneous and based on deficient procedures under the US Tariff Act of 1930 and related regulations. The Japanese complaint also concerns certain provisions of the Tariff Act of 1930 and related regulations. Japan claims violations of Articles VI and X of the GATT 1994 and Articles 2, 3, 6 (including Annex II), 9 and 10 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. On 24 February 2000, Japan requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 20 March 2000, the DSB established a panel. Brazil, Canada, Chile, the EC and Korea reserved their third-party rights. The panel circulated its report on 28 February 2001. The panel concluded: (1) that the US acted inconsistently with Articles6.8 and Annex II of the ADAgreement in its application of "facts available" to Kawasaki Steel Corporation (KSC), Nippon Steel Corporation (NSC) and NKK Corporation; (2) that section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, which mandates that USDOC exclude only margins based entirely on facts available in determining an all others rate, is inconsistent with Article9.4 of the ADAgreement, and that therefore the US has acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article18.4 of the ADAgreement and ArticleXVI:4 of the Marrakesh Agreement by failing to bring that provision into conformity with its obligations under the ADAgreement; and (3) that the US acted inconsistently with Article2.1 of the ADAgreement in excluding certain home-market sales to affiliated parties from the calculation of normal value on the basis of the "arm's length" test. In addition, in light of the findings above, the panel concluded that the replacement of those sales with sales to unaffiliated downstream purchasers was inconsistent with Article2.1 of the ADAgreement. With respect to those of Japan's claims not addressed above the panel concluded: (1) that the claim was not within its terms of reference ("general practice" concerning adverse facts available; "general practice" of excluding certain home-market sales from the calculation of normal value), or (2) that, in light of considerations of judicial economy, it is neither necessary nor appropriate to make findings. On 25 April 2001, the US notified its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law covered in the Panel Report and certain legal interpretations developed by the Panel. (2) United States Transitional Safeguard Measure on Combed Cotton Yarn from Pakistan, complaint by Pakistan (DS192/1). This request for a panel, dated 3 April 2000, is in respect of a transitional safeguard measure applied by the United States, as of 17 March 1999, on combed cotton yarn (United States category 301) from Pakistan (see US Federal Register of 12 March 1999, document 99-6098). In accordance with Article 6.10 of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC), the United States had notified the TMB on 5 March 1999 that it had decided to unilaterally impose a restraint, after consultations as to whether the situation called for a restraint had failed to produce a mutually satisfactory solution. In April 1999, the TMB examined the US restraint pursuant to Article 6.10 of the ATC and recommended that the US restraint should be rescinded. On 28 May 1999, in accordance with Article 8.10 of the ATC, the United States notified the TMB that it considered itself unable to conform to the recommendations issued by the TMB. Despite a further recommendation of the TMB pursuant to Article 8.10 of the ATC that the United States reconsider its position, the United States continued to maintain its unilateral restraint and thus the matter remained unresolved. Pakistan is of the view that the transitional safeguards applied by the United States are inconsistent with the United States' obligations under Articles 2.4 of the ATC and not justified by Article 6 of the ATC. Pakistan considers that the US restraint does not meet the requirements for transitional safeguards set out in paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 7 of Article 6 of the ATC. At its meeting on 19 June 2000, the DSB established a panel. India and the EC reserved their third-party rights. The panel circulated its report on 31 May 2001. The Panel concluded that the transitional safeguard measure (quantitative restriction) imposed by the US on imports of combed cotton yarn from Pakistan as of 17 March 1999, and extended as of 17 March 2000 for a further year is inconsistent with the provisions of Article6 of the ATC. Specifically, the Panel found that: (a) inconsistently with its obligations under 6.2, the US excluded the production of combed cotton yarn by vertically integrated producers for their own use from the scope of the "domestic industry producing like and/or directly competitive products" with imported combed cotton yarn; (b) inconsistently with its obligations under Article 6.4, the US did not examine the effect of imports from Mexico (and possibly other appropriate Members) individually; (c) inconsistently with its obligations under Articles 6.2 and 6.4, the US did not demonstrate that the subject imports caused an "actual threat" of serious damage to the domestic industry. With respect to the other claims, the Panel found that Pakistan did not establish that the measure at issue was inconsistent with the US obligations under Article6 of the ATC. Specifically, the Panel found that: (a) Pakistan did not establish that the US determination of serious damage was not justified based on the data used by the US investigating authority; (b) Pakistan did not establish that the US determination of serious damage was not justified regarding the evaluation by the US investigating authority of establishments that ceased producing combed cotton yarn; (c) Pakistan did not establish that the US determinations of serious damage and causation thereof were not justified based upon an inappropriately chosen period of investigation and period of incidence of serious damage and causation thereof. The Panel recommended that the Dispute Settlement Body request that the United States bring the measure at issue into conformity with its obligations under the ATC, and suggested that this can best be achieved by prompt removal of the import restriction. On 9 July 2001, the US notified its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law covered in the Panel Report and certain legal interpretations developed by the Panel. Panel Reports Issued (1) United States Measures Treating Export Restraints As Subsidies, complaint by Canada (WT/DS194/1). This request, dated 19 May 2000, concerns US measures that treat a restraint on exports of a product as a subsidy to other products made using or incorporating the restricted product if the domestic price of the restricted product is affected by the restraint. The measures at issue include provisions of the Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) (H.R. 5110, H.R. Doc. 316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong., 2d Sess., 656, in particular at 925-926 (1994)) and the Explanation of the Final Rules, US Department of Commerce, Countervailing Duties, Final Rule (63 Federal Register 65,348 at 65,349-51 (Nov. 25, 1998)) interpreting section 771(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1677(5)), as amended by the URAA. Canada considers that these measures are inconsistent with US obligations under Articles 1.1, 10, (as well as Articles 11, 17 and 19, as they relate to the requirements of Article 10), and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement because these measures provide that the US will impose countervailing duties against practices that are not subsidies within the meaning of Article 1.1 of the SCM Agreement. Canada also considers that the US has failed to ensure that its laws, regulations and administrative procedures are in conformity with its ϲʹ obligations as required by Article 32.5 of the SCM Agreement and Article XVI:4 of the ϲʹ Agreement. On 24 July 2000, Canada requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 11 September 2000, the DSB established a panel. Australia, the EC and India reserved their third-party rights. The Panel circulated its report on 29 June 2001. The Panel concluded that: (i) an export restraint as defined in this dispute cannot constitute government-entrusted or government-directed provision of goods in the sense of subparagraph(iv) and hence does not constitute a financial contribution in the sense of Article 1.1(a) of the SCMAgreement; and (ii) Section 771(5)(B)(iii) read in light of the SAA and the Preamble to the US CVD Regulations is not inconsistent with Article 1.1 of the SCMAgreement by "requir[ing] the imposition of countervailing duties against practices that are not subsidies within the meaning of Article1.1". With respect to those of Canada's claims not addressed above, the Panel concluded that in light of considerations of judicial economy, it was neither necessary nor appropriate to make findings thereon. The Panel therefore made no recommendations with respect to the US' obligations under the SCM and ϲʹ Agreements. Active Panels (1) Argentina Measures Affecting Imports of Footwear, complaint by the United States (WT/DS164/1). This dispute, dated 1 March 1999, is in respect of certain measures implemented by Argentina affecting imports of footwear. The United States contends that in November 1998, Argentina adopted Resolution 1506 modifying Resolution 987 of 10 September 1997, which had established safeguard duties on imports of footwear from non-MERCOSUR countries. Resolution 1506 allegedly imposes a tariff-rate quota (TRQ) on such footwear imports in addition to the safeguard duties previously imposed, postpones any liberalization of the original safeguard duty until 30 November 1999, and liberalizes the TRQ only once during the life of the measure. The United States further contends that Argentina has not notified this measure to the Committee on Safeguards. The United States alleges violations of Articles 5.1, 7.4 and 12 of the Agreement on Safeguards. On 3June 1999, the US requested the establishment of a panel. See also complaint by Indonesia (DS123) and complaint by the EC (DS121). On 15 July 1999, the United States requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 26 July 1999, the DSB established a panel. (2) Nicaragua Measures Affecting Imports from Honduras and Colombia (I), complaint by Colombia (WT/DS188/1). This request, dated 17 January 2000, is in respect of Nicaragua's Law 325 of 1999, which provides for the imposition of charges on goods and services from Honduras and Colombia, as well as regulatory Decree 129-99. Colombia claims that these measures are inconsistent, inter alia, with Articles I and II of GATT 1994. On 27 March 2000, Colombia requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 18 May 2000, the DSB established a panel. Canada, Costa Rica, the EC, Honduras and the United States reserved their third-party rights. (3)(a) India Measures Relating to Trade and Investment in the Motor Vehicle Sector, complaint by the United States (WT/DS175/1). This request, dated 1 May 1999, is in respect of certain Indian measures affecting trade and investment in the motor vehicle sector. The United States contends that the measures in question require manufacturing firms in the motor vehicle sector to: (i) achieve specified levels of local content; (ii) achieve a neutralization of foreign exchange by balancing the value of certain imports with the value of exports of cars and components over a stated period; and (iii) limit imports to a value based on the previous year's exports. According to the United States, these measures are enforceable under Indian law and rulings, and manufacturing firms in the motor vehicle sector must comply with these requirements in order to obtain Indian import licenses for certain motor vehicle parts and components. The United States considers that these measures violate the obligations of India under ArticlesIII and XI of GATT 1994, and Article 2 of the TRIMS Agreement. On 15 May 2000, the US asked for the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 27 July 2000, the DSB established a panel. The EC, Japan and Korea reserved their third-party rights. (3)(b) India - Measures Affecting the AutomotiveSector, complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS146/1). This request, dated 6October 1998, concerns certain measures affecting the automotive sector being applied by India. The EC states that the measures include the documents entitled "Export and Import Policy, 1997-2002", "ITC (HS Classification) Export and Import Policy 1997-2002" ("Classification"), and "Public Notice No. 60 (PN/97-02) of 12 December 1997, Export and Import Policy April 1997-March 2002", and any other legislative or administrative provision implemented or consolidated by these policies, as well as MoUs signed by the Indian Government with certain manufacturers of automobiles. The EC contends that under these measures, imports of complete automobiles and of certain parts and components are subject to a system of non-automatic import licenses. The EC further contends that in accordance with Public Notice No. 60, import licenses may be granted only to local joint venture manufacturers that have signed an MoU with the Indian Government, whereby they undertake, inter alia, to comply with certain local content and export balancing requirements. The EC alleges violations of Articles III and XI of GATT 1994, and Article 2 of the TRIMs Agreement. On 12 October 2000, the EC requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting of 23 October 2000, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. At its meeting of 17 November 2000, the DSB established a panel and decided that this would be a single panel under Article 9.1 of the DSU with the panel already established under WT/DS175 (see (8)(a) above). Japan reserved its third-party rights. (4) United States Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act, complaint by the European Communities and its member States (WT/DS176/1). This request, dated 8 July 1999, is in respect of Section 211 of the US Omnibus Appropriations Act. The EC and their member States allege that Section 211, which was signed into law on 21October 1998, has the consequence of making impermissible the registration or renewal in the United States of a trademark, if it was previously abandoned by a trademark owner whose business and assets have been confiscated under Cuban law. The EC and its member States further allege that this law provides that no US court shall recognize or enforce any assertion of such rights. The EC and their member States consider that Section 211 US Omnibus Appropriations Act is not in conformity with the US' obligations under the TRIPS Agreement, notably its Article 2 in conjunction with the Paris Convention, Article 3, Article 4, Articles 15 to 21, Article 41, Article 42 and Article 62. On 30 June 2000, the EC and its member States requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 26 September 2000, the DSB established a panel. Canada, Japan and Nicaragua reserved their third-party rights. (5) United States Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Circular Welded Carbon Quality Line Pipe from Korea, complaint by Korea (WT/DS202/1). This request, dated 13 June 2000, concerns the definitive safeguard measure imposed by the United States on imports of circular welded carbon quality line pipe (line pipe). Korea notes that on 18 February 2000 the United States proclaimed a definitive safeguard measure on imports of line pipe (subheadings 7306.10.10 and 7306.10.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States). In that proclamation, the United States announced that the proposed date of introduction of the measure was 1 March 2000 and that the measure was expected to remain in effect for 3 years and 1 day. Korea considers that the US procedures and determinations that led to the imposition of the safeguard measure as well as the measure itself contravene various provisions contained in the Safeguards Agreement and the GATT 1994. In particular, Korea considers that the measure is inconsistent with the United States' obligations under Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 11 and 12 of the Safeguards Agreement; and Articles I, XIII and XIX of the GATT 1994. On 14 September 2000, Korea requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 26 September 2000, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. At its meeting of 23 October 2000, the DSB established a panel. Australia, Canada, EC, Japan and Mexico reserved their third-party rights to participate in the Panel's proceedings. (6) Philippines Measures Affecting Trade and Investment in the Motor Vehicle Sector, complaint by the United States (WT/DS195/1). This request, dated 23 May 2000, is in respect of certain measures in the Philippines' Motor Vehicle Development Program ("MVDP"), including the Car Development Program, the Commercial Vehicle Development Program, and the Motorcycle Development Program. The United States asserts that the MVDP provides that motor vehicle manufacturers located in the Philippines who meet certain requirements are entitled to import parts, components and finished vehicles at a preferential tariff rate. The United States also asserts that foreign manufacturers' import licenses for parts, components and finished vehicles are conditioned on compliance with these requirements. Among the requirements referred to by the United States are the requirement that manufacturers use parts and components produced in the Philippines and that they earn a percentage of the foreign exchange needed to import those parts and components by exporting finished vehicles. The United States considers that these measures are inconsistent with the obligations of the Philippines under Articles III:4, III:5 and XI:1 of the GATT 1994, Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the TRIMS Agreement, and Article 3.1(b) of the SCM Agreement. On 12 October 2000, the United States requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting of 23 October 2000, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. At its meeting of 17 November 2000, the DSB established a panel. India and Japan reserved their third party rights. (7) Argentina Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Imports of Ceramic Floor Tiles from Italy, complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS189/1). This request, dated 26 January 2000, is in respect of Argentina's definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of carton-board from Germany imposed on 26 February 1999 as well as Argentina's definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of ceramic floor tiles from Italy imposed on 12 November 1999. The EC claims that the Argentinian investigating authority rejected without justification a request by EC exporters for confidential treatment with respect to highly sensitive business information, disregarded without explanation most of the information presented by the EC exporters and failed to disclose the essential facts under consideration which formed the basis of the decision to impose anti-dumping measures. The EC considers that these measures are inconsistent with the Anti-Dumping Agreement, and in particular, Articles 2; 6.5; 6.9; 6.10; and 6.8 in conjunction with paragraphs 3, 5, 6, and 7 of Annex II of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. On 14 September 2000, the European Communities requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 26 September 2000, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 17 November 2000, the DSB established a panel on the basis of the EC's reduced complaint which relates only to definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of ceramic floor tiles from Italy (WT/DS189/3). Japan, Turkey and the US reserved their third-party rights. (8) Chile Measures Affecting the Transit and Importation of Swordfish, complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS193/1). This request, dated 19 April 2000, concerns the prohibition on unloading of swordfish in Chilean ports established on the basis of Article 165 of the Chilean Fishery Law (Ley General de Pesca y Acuicultura), as consolidated by the Supreme Decree 430 of 28 September 1991, and extended by Decree 598 of 15 October 1999. The EC asserts that its fishing vessels operating in the South East Pacific are not allowed under Chilean legislation to unload their swordfish in Chilean ports either to land them for warehousing or to transship them onto other vessels. The EC considers that, as a result, Chile makes transit through its ports impossible for swordfish. The EC claims that the above-mentioned measures are inconsistent with the GATT 1994, and in particular Articles V and XI thereof. On 6 November 2000, the EC requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting of 17 November 2000, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. At its meeting of 12 December 2000, the DSB established a panel. Australia, Canada, Ecuador, India, New Zealand, Norway, Iceland and the US reserved their third-party rights. On 23 March 2001, the parties to the dispute informed the Director-General of the ϲʹ that they had agreed to suspend the process for the constitution of the panel. (9) Chile Price Band System and Safeguard Measures relating to Certain Agricultural Products, complaint by Argentina (WT/DS207/1). This request, dated 5 October 2000, concerns: (1) the price band system established by Law 18.525 (as subsequently amended by Law 18.591 and Law 19.546), as well as implementing regulations and complementary and/or amending provisions; and (2) the provisional safeguard measures adopted on 19 November 1999 by Decree No. 339 of the Ministry of Economy and the definitive safeguard measures imposed on 20 January 2000 by Decree No. 9 of the Ministry of Economy on the importation of various products, including wheat, wheat flour and edible vegetal oils. Argentina considers that these measures raise questions concerning the obligations of Chile under various agreements. According to Argentina, the provisions with which the measures relating to the said price band system are inconsistent, include, but are not limited to, the following: Article II of the GATT 1994, and Article 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture. According to Argentina, the provisions with which the safeguard measures are inconsistent, include, but are not limited to, the following: Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 12 of the Safeguards Agreement, and Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994. On 19 January 2001, Argentina requested establishment of a panel. At its meeting of 1 February 2001, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. At its meeting of 12 March 2001, the DSB established a panel. Australia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, the EC, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Japan, Nicaragua, Paraguay, the US and Venezuela reserved their third party rights. (10) Belgium Administration of Measures Establishing Customs Duties for Rice, request by the United States (WT/DS210/1). This request, dated 12 October 2000, concerns the administration by Belgium of laws and regulations establishing the customs duties applicable to rice imported from the United States. The United States considers that (1) Belgium has failed to administer the pertinent laws and regulations in a manner that is consistent with its ϲʹ obligations, leading to the assessment of duties on rice imported from the United States in excess of the bound rate of duty, in contravention of Article II of the GATT 1194; (2) Belgium's use of reference prices in the calculation of the applicable import duties would appear to be inconsistent with Article VII of the GATT 1994 and the Customs Valuation Agreement; (3) Belgium's refusal to recognize widely accepted industry standards associated with the grading of rice appears to be inconsistent with Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 9 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade; (4) Belgium has failed to administer its customs valuation determinations and its assessment of tariffs in a transparent manner, thereby impeding trade, and appears to have applied the measures in a manner that discriminates against rice imported from the United States. According to the United States, the measures have restricted imports of rice into Belgium. Thus, the Belgian measures also appear to be inconsistent with Articles I, X and XI of the GATT 1994 and Article 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture. According to the United States, Belgium's measures appear to be inconsistent with the following specific provisions of the identified agreements: Articles I, II, VII, VIII, X and XI of the GATT 1994; Articles 1-6, 7, 10, 14, 16 and Annex I of the Customs Valuation Agreement; Articles 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade; Article 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture. Belgium's measures also appear to nullify or impair the benefits accruing to the United States directly or indirectly under the cited agreements. On 19 January 2001, the US requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting of 1 February 2001, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. At its meeting of 12 March 2001, the DSB established a panel. India and Japan reserved their third-party rights. (11) Canada Export Credits and Loan Guarantees for Regional Aircraft (WT/DS222/1), request by Brazil. This request, dated 22 January 2001, concerns subsidies which are allegedly being granted to Canada's regional aircraft industry. According to Brazil, export credits, within the meaning of Item (k) of Annex I to the SCM Agreement, are being provided to Canada's regional aircraft industry by the Export Development Corporation (EDC) and the Canada Account. Brazil also submits that loan guarantees, within the meaning of Item (j) of Annex I to the SCM Agreement, are being provided by EDC, Industry Canada, and the Province of Quebec, to support exports of Canada's regional aircraft industry. Brazil takes the view that all of the above-mentioned measures are subsidies, within the meaning of Article 1 of the SCM Agreement, since they are financial contributions that confer a benefit. According to Brazil, they are also contingent, in law or in fact, upon export, and constitute, therefore, a violation of Article 3 of the SCM Agreement. On 1 March 2001, Brazil requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting of 12 March 2001, the DSB established a panel. Australia, the EC, India and the US reserved their third party rights. (12) Egypt Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Steel Rebar from Turkey (WT/DS211/1). This request, dated 6 November 2000, concerns an anti-dumping investigation by the Egyptian Ministry of Trade and Supply with respect to imports of rebar from Turkey. The investigation was completed and the final report released on 21 October 1999. As a result of the investigation, anti-dumping duties were imposed, ranging from 22.63-61.00 per cent ad valorem. Turkey considers that Egypt made determinations of injury and dumping in that investigation without a proper establishment of the facts and based on an evaluation of the facts that was neither unbiased nor objective. Turkey considers that, during the investigation of material injury or threat thereof and the causal link, Egypt acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 6.1 and 6.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. Turkey considers that, during the investigation of sales at less than normal value, Egypt violated Article X:3 of the GATT 1994, as well as Articles 2.2, 2.4, 6.1, 6.2, 6.6, 6.7 and 6.8, and Annex II, Paragraphs 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7 and Annex I, Paragraph 7 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. On 3 May 2001, Turkey requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting of 20 June 2001, the DSB established a panel. Chile, the EC, Japan and the US reserved their third party rights. (13) Peru Taxes on Cigarettes (WT/DS227/1), request by Chile. This request concerns the Peruvian Supreme Decree No.158-99-EF of 25September 1999 modifying appendicesIII and IV of the General Sales Tax and Selective Consumption Tax Law, which identify the goods subject to the selective consumption tax. Article1B of the said Supreme Decree amends the tax applied to cigarettes made of dark tobacco, standard cigarettes made of bright tobacco and premium cigarettes made of bright tobacco, setting a different specific tax for each one of these categories of cigarettes ranging from S/0.025 to S/0.100 per unit. According to Chile, the difference in the amount of the tax appears to be contingent only on the number of countries in which the different commercial brands of cigarettes are marketed more than three or less than three a criterion which is a source of concern for Chile, since it could signify discrimination against imported cigarettes, from Chile for example, which, being marketed in more than three countries, are subject to a higher tax than local brand cigarettes. In Chile's view, this situation, which is damaging to Chilean cigarette exports to Peru, could constitute a violation of the GATT1994 in particular, but not necessarily exclusively, of ArticleIII.2 of the GATT1994 and of a repeated Appellate Body jurisprudence in this area. Pending Consultations (most recent listed first) (92) United States Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (WT/DS234/1), request by Canada and Mexico. The request, dated 21 May 2001, concerns the amendment to the Tariff Act of 1930 signed into law by the President on October 28, 2000, entitled the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (the Act). According to Canada and Mexico, the express purpose of the Act is to remedy the continued dumping or subsidization of import products after the issuance of antidumping orders or findings or countervailing duty orders. With that objective, the Act requires the U.S. customs authorities to distribute, on an annual basis, the duties assessed pursuant to a countervailing duty order, an anti-dumping order or a finding under the Antidumping Act of 1921 to the affected domestic producers for their qualifying expenses. The affected domestic producers are the petitioners or interested parties who supported the petition. Qualifying expenses include the expenditure incurred with respect to manufacturing facilities, equipment, acquisition of technology, acquisition of raw material or other inputs. According to Canada and Mexico, the offsets constitute a specific action against dumping and subsidization which is not contemplated in the GATT, the Anti-Dumping Agreement ("ADA") or the SCM Agreement. Moreover, the offsets provide a strong incentive to the domestic producers to file or support petitions for anti-dumping or countervailing measures, thereby distorting the application of the standing requirements provided for in the ADA and SCM Agreement. In addition, the Act makes it more difficult for exporters subject to an anti-dumping or countervailing duty order to secure an undertaking with the competent authorities, since the affected domestic producers will have a vested interest in opposing such undertakings in favour of the collection of anti-dumping or countervailing duties. In Canada and Mexicos view, this would not lead to an impartial and reasonable administration of the U.S. laws, regulations and decisions or rulings implementing the provisions of the ADA and the SCM Agreement regarding standing determinations and undertakings. Furthermore, Canada and Mexico consider that the offsets paid under the Act constitute specific subsidies within the meaning of Article 1 of the SCM Agreement, which may cause adverse effects to their interests, in the sense of Article 5 of the SCM Agreement in the form of nullification and impairment of benefits accruing directly or indirectly to Canada and Mexico and serious prejudice in the sense of Article 6 of the SCM Agreement. For these reasons, Canada and Mexico consider that the Act appears to be inconsistent with the obligations of the United States under the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the ϲʹ, as well as the GATT, the ADA and the SCM Agreement. In particular, the Act seems to be inconsistent with the obligations of the United States under: (i) Article 18.1 of the ADA in conjunction with Article VI:2 of the GATT and Article 1 of the ADA; (ii) Article 32.1 of the SCM Agreement, in conjunction with Article VI:3 of the GATT and 10 of the SCM Agreement; (iii) Article X(3)(a) of the GATT; (iv) Article 5.4 of the ADA and Article 11.4 of the SCM Agreement; (v) Article 8 of the ADA and Article 18 of the SCM Agreement; (vi) Article 5 of the SCM Agreement; and (vii) Article XVI:4 of the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the ϲʹ, Article 18.4 of the ADA and Article 32.5 of the SCM Agreement. According to Canada and Mexico, as a result of being inconsistent with the above provisions, the Act appears to nullify or impair the benefits accruing to Canada and Mexico under the cited Agreements in the manner described in Article XXIII:1 (a) of GATT. In addition, Canada and Mexico consider that the Act, whether or not it conflicts with the provisions of the cited Agreements, may nullify or impair benefits accruing to Canada and Mexico under the above-mentioned Agreements in the manner described in Article XXIII:1(b) of GATT. (91) Argentina Measures affecting the Import of Pharmaceutical Products (WT/DS233/1), request by India. The request, dated 25 May 2001, concerns Argentina's Law No. 24.766 and Decree No. 150/92. According to India, these measures constitute unnecessary obstacles to international trade and prevent Indian medicines, drugs and other pharmaceuticals from entering into the Argentinean market, thus discriminating against Indian drugs vis--vis like products of other countries and of Argentina. According to India, the above measures require that before entering the Argentinean market, all drugs and other pharmaceuticals must be registered with the National Administration of Drugs, Foodstuffs and Medical Technology, Ministry of Health of Argentina. The above Decree contains two annexes listing countries. In respect of Annex I countries, pharmaceutical products are required to be manufactured in facilities approved by the relevant governmental bodies of these countries or by the Argentinean Ministry of Health and meet the National Health Authority's manufacturing and quality control requirements. In respect of Annex II countries, manufacturing facilities are required to be inspected and approved by the Ministry of Health of Argentina before export of these pharmaceutical products into Argentina. According to India, it does not figure in either of those two annexes. This alleged discrimination would have led to total lack of market access for Indian drugs and pharmaceutical products in Argentina. India considers that infringement of the following provisions have taken place: (i) Articles 2 (especially 2.2), 5 (especially 5.1 and 5.2) and 12 of the TBT Agreement; (ii) Articles I and III of the GATT 1994; (iii) Article XVI:4 of the Agreement establishing the ϲʹ. (90) Mexico Measures affecting the Import of Matches (WT/DS232/1), request by Chile. The request, dated 17 May 2001, concerns a series of Mexican laws and regulations which are alleged to constitute unnecessary barriers to the import of Chilean matches. According to Chile, pursuant to these laws and regulations, matches have been classified in Mexico as an explosive and hazardous product, due to a confusion between the chemical element "fsforo" (phosphor) and "fosfros (o cerillos) de seguridad" (matches). As a result, Chilean matches have been subject to control by the National Defense Ministry and, consequently, to a series of requirements regarding packaging, entry, liquidation, transportation and storage applicable to explosives and other hazardous substances, with the aim of providing protection to the Mexican industry. According to Chile, these measures are inconsistent with, inter alia, the following provisions: (i) Articles 1, 2 and 5 of the TBT Agreement; (ii) Articles 1, 3 and 5 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures; (iii) Article III:4 of the GATT 1994. (89) European Communities Trade Description of Sardines (WT/DS231/1), request by Peru. This request, dated 20 March 2001, concerns Regulation (CEE) 2136/89. According to Peru, this Regulation prevents Peruvian exporters to continue to use the trade description "sardines" for their products. Peru submits that, according to the relevant Codex Alimentarius standards (STAN 94-181 rev. 1995), the species "sardinops sagax sagax" is listed among those species which can be traded as "sardines". Peru, therefore, considers that the above Regulation constitutes an unjustifiable barrier to trade, and, hence, in breach of Articles 2 and 12 of the TBT Agreement and Article XI:1 of GATT 1994. In addition, Peru argues that the Regulation is inconsistent with the principle of non-discrimination, and, hence, in breach of Articles I and III of GATT 1994. On 7 June 2001, Peru requested the establishment of a panel. (88) Chile Safeguard Measures and Modification of Schedules regarding Sugar (WT/DS230/1), request by Colombia. This request, dated 17 April 2001, concerns: (1) definitive safeguard measures imposed by Chile on 20 January 2000 in respect of a number of agricultural products, including sugar, and extended in November 2000 for the duration of one year; and (2) Chile's decision of 14 March 2001 not to recognize Colombia's substantial interest to be consulted with respect to the modification of concessions regarding, inter alia, refined sugar (HS sub-heading 17.01.99.00). In November of 2000, Chile had notified its intention to modify these concessions pursuant to Article XXVIII of GATT 1994. According to Colombia, the above measures are inconsistent with Chile's obligations under the following provisions: (1) Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 and 12 of the Safeguards Agreement; (2) Articles II, XIX and XXVIII of GATT 1994; and (3), the Understanding on the Interpretation of Article XXVIII of the GATT 1994 and the Guidelines of 10 November 1980 regarding Procedures for Negotiations under Article XXVIII. According to Colombia, the Chilean measures, taken together or individually, appear to nullify and impair benefits accruing to Colombia under the cited agreements. As indicated by Colombia in its request, this new request replaces in its totality the request for consultations by Colombia circulated as WT/DS228/1. (87) Brazil Anti-Dumping Duties on Jute Bags from India (WT/DS229/1), request by India. This request, dated 9 April 2001, concerns: (1) the determination by the Brazilian government to continue to impose anti-dumping duties on jute bags and bags made of jute yarn from India, based on an allegedly forged document regarding dumping margin attributed to a non-existing Indian company; (2) its refusal to reconsider the decision to continue anti-dumping duties on Indian jute products despite the fact that the non-existence of that company was brought to the notice of the authorities; (3) non-consideration of the fresh evidence regarding cost of production, domestic sales prices, export prices, etc., of Indian jute manufacturers, and refusal to initiate review of the decision to impose anti-dumping duties; (4) the general practice of Brazil regarding review and imposition of anti-dumping duties; and (5) Brazilian anti-dumping laws and regulations, including, but not limited to, Article 58 of Decree No. 1.602 of 1995. According to India, the provisions with which these determinations and legal provisions appear to be inconsistent include, but are not limited to, the following: (1) Articles VI and X of GATT 1994; (2) Articles 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 (especially 6.6, 6.7, 6.8 and Annex II, 6.9, 6.10), 11, 12, 17.6(i), 18.3, 18.4; and (3), Article XVI of the ϲʹ Agreement. In addition, according to India, the determination to continue the anti-dumping duties also appears to nullify and impair benefits accruing to India under, or otherwise impedes the attainment of objectives of, the cited agreements. (86) Chile Safeguard Measures on Sugar (WT/DS228/1), request by Colombia. This request, dated 19 March 2001, concerns definitive safeguard measures relating to sugar. According to Colombia, on 20 January 2000, Chile imposed definitive safeguard measures in respect of a number of agricultural products, including sugar. In late November 2000, Chile decided to extend the safeguard measure for the duration of one year. Colombia claims that Chile failed to respect a number of requirements relating to the imposition of safeguard measures, including those relating to the determination of the magnitude of the surcharge to be imposed; the definition of the domestic industry suffering injury; the presence of serious injury; absence of foreseeability; the exclusion, in certain circumstances, of developing country products; the demonstration of industry adjustment prior to extending a safeguard measure's duration as well as prior consultations with interested parties. In particular, Colombia considers that the definitive safeguard measures in question are inconsistent with Chile's obligations under Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9 and 12 of the Safeguards Agreement, and Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994. See WT/DS230/1 above. (85) Chile Provisional Safeguard Measure on Mixtures of Edible Oils (WT/DS226/1), request by Argentina. This request concerns a provisional safeguard measure on imports of mixed edible oils (tariff heading 1517.9000 of the Chilean Harmonised System), adopted by the Chilean authorities on 11 January 2001, and consisting of an ad valorem duty of 48% on imports of those products. On 10 January 2001 the notification by Chile of the initiation of the investigation was circulated as document G/SG/N/6/CHL/5, and on 19 January 2001 the notification of the recommendation by the Chilean investigating authority to impose a provisional safeguard measure was circulated as document G/SG/N/7/5/Suppl.1. According to Argentina, first, Chile did not comply with its obligation pursuant to Article 12.4 of the Safeguards Agreement (SA) to hold consultations immediately following adoption of the measure. Argentina also opines that there is no clear definition of like or directly competitive product, the affected domestic industry, or the period of investigation during which the performance of imports was assessed. In addition, as regards the assessment of injury or threat of injury, in Argentina's view, it is not clear from a preliminary analysis with respect to which industry such assessment was made, since it appears that the data used do sometimes not relate to the same industry. Furthermore, Argentina argues that there does not seem to be clear evidence of a causal link between increased imports and the threat of serious injury to the domestic industry. It also considers that the investigating authority did not take into account "factors other than increased imports causing injury to the domestic industry at the same time," as provided for by Article 4.2(b) SA. Finally, the notification does not indicate the reasons why any delay could cause irreparable damage to the domestic industry, and, therefore, does not establish the existence of "critical circumstances." Argentina believes that the said provisional safeguard measure is inconsistent with Chile's obligations under Article XIX of GATT 1994 and the SA, including, but not limited to, Articles 2, 4, 6 and 12. (84) United States Anti-dumping duties on Seamless pipe from Italy (WT/DS225/1), request by the EC. This request concerns anti-dumping duties imposed by the United States on imports of seamless line and pressure pipe ("seamless pipe") from Italy. The request relates in particular to the final results of a sunset review of the measure, carried out by the US Department of Commerce (DOC) and published in the federal register on 7 November 2000. It also covers certain aspects of the procedures followed by the DOC for initiating sunset reviews which are contained in Section 751 c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 and in the implementing regulations issued by the DOC. With regard to the final results of the sunset review, the EC considers that the DOC's finding that the revocation of the anti-dumping order was likely to lead to the continuation of dumping is inconsistent with the obligations of the United States under the Anti-Dumping Agreement and, in particular is in breach of Articles 5.8, 11.1 and 11.3 thereof. The EC notes that in this instance the DOC has found in the sunset review that dumping will continue at a rate of 1,27%, which is below the 2% de minimis threshold for new investigations in Article 5.8 which, in the view of the EC, applies also in sunset reviews of anti-dumping measures. In addition, according to the EC, the DOC should have made a positive demonstration to the effect that the expiry of the measures would be likely to lead to, inter alia, the continuation or recurrence of dumping, whereas it has only found that dumping of less than de minimis level will continue. This was, in the view of the EC, not sufficient to justify the continuation of the measure. With regard to the initiation of the sunset review, the EC considers that the procedure used was inconsistent with Articles 11.1, 11.3, and 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and with Article XVI.4 of the Agreement establishing the ϲʹ. The EC considers that by self-initiating sunset reviews without positive evidence, and by not requiring such evidence from its domestic industry for initiation, the DOC is unreasonably shifting the burden of proof in sunset reviews to exporters. In the view of the European Communities, by placing all respondents (domestic industry and exporters) on the same footing in the investigation, the DOC has removed the appropriate threshold for initiation of reviews foreseen in Article 11.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. (83) United States US Patents Code (WT/DS224/1), request by Brazil. This request concerns the provisions of the United States Patents Code (US Patents Code), in particular those of Chapter 18 [38] "Patent Rights in Inventions Made with Federal Assistance". Brazil detects several discriminatory elements in the US Patents Code, including, but not limited to, the following examples: (1) the stipulation that no small business firm or non-profit organization which receives title to any subject invention shall grant to any person the exclusive right to use or sell any subject invention in the United States unless such person agrees that any products embodying the subject invention or produced through the use of the invention will be manufactured substantially in the United States. Brazil also refers to a requirement that each funding agreement with a small business firm or non-profit organization shall contain appropriate provisions to effectuate the above-mentioned requirement; and (2), the statutory restrictions limiting the right to use or sell any federally owned invention in the United States only to a licensee that agrees that any products embodying the invention or produced through the use of the invention will be manufactured substantially in the United States. Brazil requests consultations with the United states on these and other provisions of the US Patents Code, to "understand how the United States justifies the consistency of such requirements with its obligations under the TRIPs Agreement, especially Articles 27 and 28, the TRIMs Agreement, Article2 in particular, and Articles III and XI of GATT 1994". (82) European Communities Tariff-Rate Quota on Corn Gluten Feed from the United States (WT/DS223/1), request by the United States. This request, dated 25 January 2001, concerns the application by the EC of a tariff-rate quota (TRQ) on corn gluten feed imported from the US. On 20 August 1998, the EC imposed a TRQ of 5 Euros per metric ton (MT) on the first 2,730,000 MT of corn gluten feed imported into the EC from the US. The TRQ was made applicable beginning on the earlier of 1 June 2001 or 5 days after the date of the DSB's adoption of a decision that the US safeguard measure on wheat gluten was incompatible with the ϲʹ Agreements. The EC has cited Articles 8.2 and 8.3 of the Safeguards Agreement as authority for this measure. According to the US, EC representatives have stated that the DSB adoption of its recommendations and rulings in US Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Wheat Gluten from the EC triggers the application of the TRQ. According to the US, the EC provided written notification of this measure to the Committee on Safeguards and the Council for Trade in Goods, but never placed the measure on the agenda of the Council for Trade in Goods. Also according to the US, the EC at no point consulted with the US on how measures imposed by the EC might meet the requirement to maintain substantially equivalent levels of concessions and other obligations to that existing under the GATT 1994. In the view of the US, it therefore appears that the corn gluten feed TRQ does not satisfy the requirements of Articles 8.1, 8.2, and 8.3 of the Safeguards Agreement for a Member to suspend concessions or other obligations. In the view of the US, the imposition of the TRQ on corn gluten feed imported from the US appears to be inconsistent with Articles I, II and XIX of the GATT 1994, and Articles 8.1, 8.2, and 8.3 of the Safeguards Agreement. According to the US, the EC's measures also appear to nullify or impair the benefits accruing to the US directly or indirectly under the cited agreements. (81) United States Section 129(c)(1) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (WT/DS221/1), request by Canada. This request, dated 17 January 2001, concerns Section 129(c)(1) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (the "URAA") and the Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the URAA. In the view of Canada, in a situation in which the DSB has ruled that the US has, in an anti-dumping or countervailing duty proceeding, acted inconsistently with US obligations under the AD or SCM Agreements, the US measures prohibit the US from complying fully with the DSB ruling. Under US law, determinations whether to levy anti-dumping or countervailing duties are made after the imports occur. With regard to imports that occurred prior to a date on which the US directs compliance with the DSB ruling, the measures require US authorities to disregard the DSB ruling in making such determinations, even where the determination whether to levy anti-dumping or countervailing duties is made after the date fixed by the DSB for compliance. In such circumstances, determinations by the US to levy anti-dumping or countervailing duties would be inconsistent with its obligations under the AD or SCM Agreements. Canada considers that these measures are inconsistent with US obligations under Article 21.3 of the DSU, in the context of Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.7 and 21.1 of the DSU; Article VI of the GATT 1994; Articles 10 and note 36, 19.2, 19.4 and note 51, 21.1, 32.1, 32.2, 32.3, and 32.5 of the SCM Agreement; Articles 1, 9.3, 11.1, 18.1-4 and note 12 of the AD Agreement; and Article XVI:4 of the ϲʹ Agreement. (80) Chile Price Band System and Safeguard Measures relating to Certain Agricultural Products (WT/DS220/1), request by Guatemala. This request, dated 5 January 2001, concerns: (1) the Chilean legislation regarding safeguards and price band systems, including Law 18.525, as subsequently amended by Law 18.591 and Law 19.546, as well as implementing regulations and complementary and/or amending provisions; (2) the initiation of an investigation regarding products subject to the price band system contained in notification (G/SG/N/6/CHL/2), the conduct of the investigation, the preliminary determination contained in notification (G/SG/N/7/CHL/2/Suppl.1), and the definitive determination contained in notifications (G/SG/N/8/CHL/1), (G/SG/N/10/CHL/1), (G/SG/N/8/CHL/1/Suppl.1) and (G/SG/N/10/CHL/1/Suppl.1); these notifications indicate that wheat, wheat flour, sugar and edible vegetal oils are subject to said safeguard measures; (3) the request for an extension of these measures contained in notifications (G/SG/N/10/CHL/1/Suppl.2) and (G/SG/N/10/CHL/1/Suppl.2/Corr.1). Guatemala considers that the measures referred to under (1) are inconsistent with, inter alia, Article II of GATT 1994 and Article 4 of the Safeguards Agreement, that the measures referred to under (2) are inconsistent with, inter alia, Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 12 of the Safeguards Agreement, and Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994, and that the request referred to under (3) appears to be inconsistent with, inter alia, Chile's obligations under GATT 1994 and Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 12 of the Safeguards Agreement. (79) European Communities Anti-dumping duties on malleable cast iron tube or pipe fittings from Brazil (WT/DS219/1), request by Brazil. This request, dated 21 December 2000, concerns a definitive anti-dumping duty which resulted from the investigation, findings and determinations adopted by the European Union in Council Regulation (EC) n 1784/2000 concerning imports of malleable cast iron tube or pipe fittings originating, inter alia, in Brazil. Brazil considers that the EC's establishment of the facts was not proper and that its evaluation of these facts was not unbiased and objective, both at the provisional and definitive stage, particularly in relation to the initiation and conduct of the investigation (including the evaluation, findings and determination of dumping, injury and causal link between them). Brazil also challenges the evaluation and findings made in relation to the "community interest". Brazil considers that the EC has infringed Article VI of GATT 1994 and articles 1, 2, 3, 4 ,5 , 6, 7, 9, 11, 12 and 15 of the Anti-dumping Agreement. On 8 June 2001, Brazil requested the establishment of a panel. (78) United States- Countervailing duties on certain carbon steel products from Brazil (WT/DS218/1), request by Brazil. This request, dated 21 December 2000, concerns an aspects of US countervailing duty practice and the imposition of countervailing duties on certain carbon steel products originating in Brazil. Brazil is concerned with the practice of the United States of applying its countervailing duty laws so as to consistently find that privatized companies benefit from pre-privatization subsidy benefits, and the unwillingness of the United States to bring its practice into conformity with the SCM Agreement. In addition, Brazil is concerned with the results of a continued imposition of an order and a final countervailing duty decision by the United States based on a finding that the benefits from equity infusions provided to companies prior to their privatization are passed through to the companies following a change in ownership and control. This is, in the view of Brazil, illustrated by two measures: (1) the decision by the United States to continue a countervailing order on certain cut-to-length plate from Brazil, following a five-year review, based on a finding that subsidization from pre-privatization equity infusions would continue if the order were revoked; and (2) the decision by the United States in its continued final countervailing duty determination related to exports of certain hot-rolled steel from Brazil, and the legal effects thereof. Brazil considers that findings that three companies were benefitting from subsidies provided prior to their privatization are in breach of Articles 1.1(b), 10, 14, 19 and 21 of the SCM Agreement, in so far as they are based on supposed benefits from equity infusions granted to the companies prior to their privatization. In addition, Brazil considers that the decision not to terminate the investigation is in breach of Article 11.9 of the SCM Agreement. Brazil notes that the Commerce Department relied on the same analysis of subsidization following a privatization, which was found to be inconsistent with ϲʹ obligations by the Appellate Body in the case on United States Imposition of Countervailing duties on Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products originating in the United Kingdom. (77) United States Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (WT/DS217/1), request by Australia, Brazil, Chile, the EC, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea and Thailand (hereinafter "the requesting Members"). This request, dated 21 December 2000, concerns the amendment to the Tariff Act of 1930 signed on 28 October 2000 with the title of Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (the Act). According to the requesting Members, the Act mandates the US customs authorities to distribute on an annual basis the duties assessed pursuant to a countervailing duty order, an anti-dumping order or a finding under the Antidumping Act of 1921 to the petitioners or interested parties who supported the petition, for their expenditure incurred with respect to manufacturing facilities, equipment, acquisition of technology, acquisition of raw material or other inputs. In the view of the requesting Members, the Act leaves no discretion to the competent authorities, and, therefore, constitutes mandatory legislation. According to the requesting Members, these offsets constitute a specific action against dumping and subsidisation which is not contemplated in the GATT, the AD Agreement or the SCM Agreement. Moreover, the offsets would provide a strong incentive to the domestic producers to file or support petitions for anti-dumping or anti-subsidy measures, thereby distorting the application of the standing requirements provided for in the AD Agreement and the SCM Agreement. In addition, the Act would make it more difficult for exporters subject to an antidumping or countervailing duty order to secure an undertaking with the competent authorities, since the affected domestic producers will have a vested interest in opposing such undertakings in favour of the collection of anti-dumping or countervailing duties. In the view of the requesting Members, this is not a reasonable and impartial administration of the US laws and regulations implementing the provisions of the ADA and the ASCM regarding standing determinations and undertakings. For the above reasons, in view of the requesting Members, the Act appears to be inconsistent with the obligations of the United States under several provisions of the GATT, the AD Agreement, the SCM Agreement, and the ϲʹ Agreement. By being inconsistent with those provisions, the Act appears to nullify or impair the benefits accruing to the requesting Members under the cited agreements in the manner described in Article XXIII.1 (a) of the GATT. Furthermore, the requesting Members are of the view that, whether or not in conflict with the cited Agreements, the Act may nullify or impair benefits accrued to them under those agreements and/or impede the attainment of objectives of those agreements in the manner described in Article XXIII.1 (b) of the GATT. In addition, the requesting Members consider that the offsets paid under the Act constitute specific subsidies within the meaning of Article 1 of the SCM Agreement, which may cause adverse effects to their interests, in the sense of Article 5 of the SCM Agreement. (76) Mexico Provisional Anti-Dumping Measure on Electric Transformers (WT/DS216/1), request by Brazil. This request, dated 20 December 2000, concerns the 17 July 2000 provisional anti-dumping measure on electronic transformers having a power of more than 10.000 KVA, classified under tariff line 8504.23.01 of the General Import Law, from Brazil. Brazil considers that the above determination and the resulting provisional measures are inconsistent with Mexico's obligations under the AD Agreement and the GATT 1994, in particular: Articles 5.2, 5.3 and 5.8 of the AD Agreement (lack of sufficient evidence of dumping, injury and causation); Article 5.8 of the AD Agreement (failure by Mexico to terminate the investigation "promptly" when presented with evidence that it was factually impossible to find dumping or injury during the period of investigation); Article 6.8 and Annex II of the AD Agreement (use by Mexico of "best information available" in a manner inconsistent with the requirements established in those provisions); Article 7.1(i) of the AD Agreement (imposition by Mexico of provisional measures pursuant to an investigation which was not initiated in accordance with Article 5 of the AD Agreement); Article 7.1(ii) of the AD Agreement (imposition by Mexico of provisional measures without a valid preliminary determination of: (1) dumping, as defined in Article 2 of the AD Agreement; (2) injury, as defined under Articles 3.4 and 3.7 of the AD Agreement). (75) Philippines Anti-Dumping Measures regarding Polypropylene Resins from Korea (WT/DS215/1), request by Korea. This request, dated 15 December 2000, concerns the Preliminary and Final Determinations of the Tariff Commission of the Philippines on Polypropylene Resins from Korea, dated 15 November 1999 and 11 September 2000 respectively. Korea considers that errors were made by the Philippines in those determinations which resulted in erroneous findings and defective conclusions with regard to, among others, like product, dumping, injury, and causality, as well as the imposition, calculation and collection of anti-dumping margins which are incompatible with the obligations of the Philippines under the provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, in particular, but not necessarily limited to, Articles 2, 3, 5, 6 (including Annex II), 7, 9, and 12, and Article VI of GATT 1994. (74) United States Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Steel Wire Rod and Circular Welded Carbon Quality Line Pipe (WT/DS214/1), request by the EC. This request, dated 30 November 2000, concerns US safeguard legislation and its application in two cases concerning the definitive safeguard measures imposed by the US on imports of certain steel wire rod (wire rod) and certain circular welded carbon quality line pipe (line pipe). The EC consider that Sections 201 and 202 of the Trade Act of 1974 contain provisions relating to the determination of a causal link between increased imports and injury or threat thereof which prevent the US from respecting Articles 4 and 5 of the Safeguards Agreement. It also considers that Section 311 of the NAFTA Implementation Act contains provisions concerning imports originating in NAFTA countries which do not respect the requirement of parallelism between the imported products subject to the investigation and the imported products subject to the safeguard measure, contrary to Articles 2, 4 and 5 of the Safeguards Agreement. The EC consider moreover that these provisions are in breach of the Most-Favoured-Nation principle under Article I of the GATT 1994. According to the EC, these violations are confirmed by the application of the aforesaid US provisions in two specific cases where the US imposed definitive safeguard measures, (1) in the form of a tariff rate quota on imports of wire rod effective as of 1 March 2000; and (2) in the form of an increase in duty on imports of line pipe effective as of 1 March 2000. The EC consider that in both the above mentioned cases the US measures are in breach of the US obligations under the provisions of GATT 1994 and of the Safeguards Agreement, in particular, but not necessarily exclusively, of: Article 2 Safeguards Agreement; Articles 3.1 and 3.2 Safeguards Agreement; Articles 4.1 and 4.2 Safeguards Agreement; Article 5.1 Safeguards Agreement; Article 8.1 Safeguards Agreement; Articles 12.2, 12.3 and 12.11 Safeguards Agreement; Article I:1 of GATT 1994; Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994. (73) United States Countervailing Duties on Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Germany (WT/DS213/1), request by the EC. This request, dated 10 November 2000, concerns countervailing duties imposed by the United States on imports of certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products (corrosion resistant steel), dealt with under US case number C-428-817. It relates in particular to the final results of a full sunset review of the above measure, carried out by the US Department of Commerce (DOC) and published in the US Federal Register No. 65 FR 47407 of 2 August 2000. In this decision, the DOC found that revocation of the countervailing duty order would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of a countervailable subsidy. The EC consider that this finding is inconsistent with the obligations of the United States under the SCM Agreement and, in particular, in breach of Articles 10, 11.9 and 21 (notably 21.3) thereof. The countervailing measure was first imposed by DOC prior to the entry into force of the ϲʹ Agreement. The original rate of countervailing duty was 0.60%. In the sunset review, the DOC has found that subsidization will continue at a rate of 0.54%. As with the rate from the original investigation, this subsidy rate would be de minimis in a new investigation and immediate termination would be required under Article 11.9 of the SCM Agreement, since the amount of subsidy is below 1% ad valorem. The European Communities consider that Article 11.9 applies also in sunset reviews of countervailing measures. These reviews have the same effect as a new investigation. They enable countervailing duties to be re-imposed and maintained for a further period of five years. In this respect they are fundamentally different from the retrospective duty assessment mentioned in footnote 52 of the SCM Agreement (the so-called administrative reviews in US practice), in which the DOC maintains the 0.5% de minimis threshold which appears to have been erroneously used by DOC in this case. The European Communities further consider that, under Article 21.3 of the SCM Agreement, countervailing duties have to be terminated after five years, unless the investigating authorities determine that their expiry would be likely to lead to, inter alia, the continuation or recurrence of subsidization. According to the European Communities, it is therefore for the DOC to make a positive demonstration to this effect. The European Communities considers that the DOC has not made such a demonstration, but, rather, that it has merely found that subsidies of less than the de minimis level provided for in Article 11.9 will continue. The European Communities do not consider that the presence of a level of subsidy which would automatically lead to the termination of a new investigation can be sufficient to warrant a further five years of countervailing measures in a sunset review, unless it can be demonstrated, on the basis of positive evidence, that there is a likelihood of the amount of subsidy increasing. According to the European Communities, in the present case, there is no possibility of any such increase. On 5 February 2001, the EC request further consultations. (72) United States Countervailing Measures concerning Certain Products from the European Communities (WT/DS212/1), request by the European Communities. This request, dated 10 November 2000, concerns the continued application by the United States of countervailing duties based on an irrebuttable presumption that non-recurring subsidies granted to a former producer of goods, prior to a change of ownership, pass through to the current producer of the goods following the change of ownership. According to the European Communities, this is what the US Department of Commerce (DOC) refers to as its change in ownership methodology. According to the European Communities, this approach was found by the Appellate Body in United States Imposition of Countervailing duties on Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products Originating in the United Kingdom to be inconsistent with the SCM Agreement. In the light of these findings, the European Communities consider that the continued application of the change in ownership methodology, and the continued imposition of duties based on it, are in breach of Articles 10, 19 and 21 of the SCM Agreement, because there is no proper determination of a benefit to the producer of the goods under investigation, as required by Article 1.1(b) of the SCM Agreement. The European Communities refer to, and include in this request for consultations, 14 US countervailing duty measures where this change in ownership methodology was applied. All these cases involve alleged non-recurring subsidies granted to firms prior to a change of ownership. Furthermore, the European Communities consider that if the US had properly examined the nature of the change of ownership in each of these cases, it would have found that it took place for fair market value, and that in such a case no benefit, as defined by Article 1.1(b) of the SCM Agreement read in conjunction with Article 14, was conferred on the producers of the goods subject to the duties by previous financial contributions from the Government to other producers. According to the European Communities, in these circumstances, the amount of countervailing duty would have been greatly reduced, or in some cases, zero. On 1 February 2001, the EC requested further consultations with the US. (71) European Communities Measures Affecting Soluble Coffee, complaint by Brazil (WT/DS209/1). This request, dated 12 October 2000, concerns measures applied under the EC's Generalized System of Preferences scheme (GSP) that affect imports of soluble coffee originating in Brazil. The measures in question include: (1) the "graduation" mechanism, which progressively and selectively reduces or eliminates preferences granted to specific products and/or beneficiary countries under the GSP scheme; in the case of Brazilian soluble coffee, preferential treatment has been progressively reduced and finally eliminated on 1 January 1999; and (2) the "drugs regime", which confers a special preferential treatment for products originating in the Andean and Central American Common Market countries that are conducting a campaign to combat drugs; in the case of soluble coffee, this special preferential treatment currently amounts to duty free access of exports originating in those countries into the EC's market. As Brazil currently understands, the EC legislation that establishes the special treatment for products among which soluble coffee is Council Regulation (EC) No. 1256/96, dated 20 June 1996, and current Council Regulation (EC) No. 2820/98, dated 21 December 1998. Brazil considers that the above measures, both separately and jointly, adversely affect the importation into the EC of soluble coffee originating in Brazil. Brazil is of the view that these measures are inconsistent with the obligations of the EC under the 1979 Decision of the GATT Contracting Parties on Differential and More Favourable Treatment, Reciprocity and Fuller Participation of Developing Countries (Enabling Clause), as incorporated in GATT 1994, and under Article I of GATT 1994. Brazil is also of the view that these measures nullify or impair the benefits accruing to Brazil directly or indirectly under the cited provisions. (70) Turkey Anti-Dumping Duty on Steel and Iron Pipe Fittings, complaint by Brazil (WT/DS208/1). This request, dated 9 October 2000, concerns the anti-dumping duty on steel and iron pipe fittings from Brazil, imposed by communication No. 2000/3 (published in the Turkish official gazette on 26 April 2000). Brazil considers that Turkey failed to ensure proper notifications in this case, that its establishment of the facts was not proper, and that its evaluation of these facts was not unbiased nor objective, particularly in relation to: (1) the initiation of the investigation; (2) the conduct of the investigation, including the evaluation, findings and determinations of dumping and injury; (3) the evaluation, findings and determinations of the causal link between dumping and injury; (4) the imposition of the anti-dumping duty. Brazil considers that Turkey has acted inconsistently with the following provisions: Article VI of the GATT 1994; Article 2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement (including paragraphs 2.1, 2.2, 2.4 and 2.6); Article 3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement (including paragraphs 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6 and 3.7) Article 5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement (including paragraphs 5.2, 5.3, 5.5, 5.7 and 5.8); Article 6 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement (including paragraphs 6.1, 6.2, 6.4, 6.6, 6.9 and 6.10); Article 12 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement (including paragraphs 12.1 and 12.2); Article 15 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. (69) United States Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Measures on Steel Plate From India, complaint by India (WT/DS206/1). This request, dated 4 October 2000, concerns (1) final affirmative determinations of sales of certain cut-to-length carbon quality steel plate products from India at less than fair value by US Department of Commerce (DOC) on 13 December 1999 and affirmed on 10 February 2000; (2) interpretation and use of provisions relating to facts available in the anti-dumping and countervailing duty investigations by DOC; (3) determination and interpretation by the US International Trade Commission (ITC) of negligibility, cumulation and material injury caused by the said Indian steel imports. India considers that these determinations are erroneous and based on deficient procedures contained in various provisions of US anti-dumping and countervailing duty law. According to India, these determinations and provisions raise questions concerning the obligations of the United States under the GATT 1994, the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the SCM Agreement, and the Agreement establishing the ϲʹ (ϲʹ Agreement). India considers that the provisions of these agreements with which these measures and determinations appear to be inconsistent, include, but are not limited to, the following: Articles VI and X of the GATT 1994; Articles 1, 2, 3 (especially 3.3), 5 (especially 5.8), 6 (especially 6.8), 12, 15, 18.4 and Annex II of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; Articles 10, 11 (especially 11.9), 15 (especially 15.3), 22 and 27 (especially 27.10) of the SCM Agreement; Article XVI of the ϲʹ Agreement. On 9 June 2001, India requested the establishment of a panel. (68) Egypt - Import Prohibition On Canned Tuna With Soybean Oil, complaint by Thailand (WT/DS205/1). This request, dated 22 September 2000, concerns the prohibition imposed by Egypt on importation of canned tuna with soybean oil from Thailand, pursuant to Letter dated 2 January 2000 of the Ministry of Economy and Foreign Trade of Egypt and Circular Note no. 5 of the Year 2000 issued on 13 January 2000 by the Customs Authority of Egypt. Thailand considers that, through the above-mentioned measures, the ArabRepublic of Egypt fails to carry out its obligations under the following provisions of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization: Articles I, XI, and XIII of the GATT, and Articles 2, 3 and 5, and Annex B, Paragraph 2 and Paragraph 5, of the SPS Agreement. (67) Mexico Measures Affecting Telecommunications Services, complaint by the United States (WT/DS204/1). This request, dated 17 August 2000, is in respect of Mexico's commitments and obligations under the GATS with respect to basic and value-added telecommunications services. According to the United States, since the entry into force of the GATS, Mexico has adopted or maintained anti-competitive and discriminatory regulatory measures, tolerated certain privately-established market access barriers, and failed to take needed regulatory action in Mexico's basic and value-added telecommunications sectors. In the view of the United States, Mexico has, for example, (ii enacted and maintained laws, regulations, rules, and other measures that deny or limit market access, national treatment, and additional commitments for service suppliers seeking to provide basic and value-added telecommunications services into and within Mexico; (ii) failed to issue and enact regulations, permits, or other measures to ensure implementation of Mexico's market access, national treatment, and additional commitments for service suppliers seeking to provide basic and value-added telecommunications services into and within Mexico; (iii) failed to enforce regulations and other measures to ensure compliance with Mexico's market access, national treatment, and additional commitments for service suppliers seeking to provide basic and value-added telecommunications services into and within Mexico; (iv) failed to regulate, control and prevent its major supplier, Telfonos de Mxico ("Telmex"), from engaging in activity that denies or limits Mexico's market access, national treatment, and additional commitments for service suppliers seeking to provide basic and value-added telecommunications services into and within Mexico; and (v) failed to administer measures of general application governing basic and value-added telecommunications services in a reasonable, objective, and impartial manner, ensure that decisions and procedures used by Mexico's telecommunications regulator are impartial with respect to all market participants, and ensure access to and use of public telecommunications transport networks and services on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms and conditions for the supply of basic and value-added telecommunications services. The United States considers that the alleged action and inaction on the part of Mexico may be inconsistent with Mexico's GATS commitments and obligations, including Articles VI, XVI, and XVII; Mexico's additional commitments under Article XVIII as set forth in the Reference Paper inscribed in Mexico's Schedule of Specific Commitments, including Sections 1, 2, 3, and 5; and the GATS Annex on Telecommunications, including Sections 4 and 5. On 10 November 2000, the United States requested the establishment of a panel. On the same date, the United States notified to the DSB a request for consultations concerning several recent measures adopted by Mexico affecting trade in telecommunication services. At its meeting on 12 December 2000, the DSB deferred establishment of a panel. (66) Mexico Measures Affecting Trade in Live Swine, complaint by the United States (WT/DS203/1). This request, dated 10 July 2000, is in respect, first, of Mexico's 20 October 1999 definitive anti-dumping measure on live swine for slaughter (merchandise classified under tariff classification 0103.92.99 of the General Import Law) exported from the United States, independently from the country or origin, and actions by Mexico in the conduct of the anti-dumping investigation resulting in that measure. The United States considers that Mexico made a determination of threat of material injury in contravention of Articles 3 and 12 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, including by failing to evaluate all relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the industry; by failing to perform an objective examination of the consequent impact of imports found to be dumped on domestic producers of the like product; by failing to determine that there was a clearly foreseen and imminent change in circumstances that would create a situation in which dumping of imports of live swine of a weight more than or equal to 50 kilograms and less than 110 kilograms would cause injury; and by failing to determine that material injury would occur unless protective action were taken. The United States further considers that Mexico failed to comply with the requirements of Article 6 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, including by failing to provide respondent US exporters with timely opportunities to see and prepare presentations on the basis of all information used by the investigating authority that is relevant to the anti-dumping investigation; and by failing to inform respondent US exporters, before the final determination was made, of the essential facts under consideration which form the basis of Mexico's decision to apply definitive measures. In addition, the US request concerns three sets of measures affecting trade in live swine (merchandise classified under tariff classification 0103 of the General Import Law) exported from the United States. The United States considers that those three sets of Mexican measures are restricting or prohibiting the entry of US live swine. First, according to the United States, Mexico has prohibited the importation of certain swine if they exceed 110 kilograms in weight. Second, notwithstanding the alleged ban on importation, Mexico allegedly maintains sanitary restrictions, including inspection and quarantine measures, on the importation of swine weighing 110 kilograms or more, which are applied to neither smaller imported swine nor domestic Mexican swine. The United States considers such application of more restrictive sanitary measures against larger imported swine to constitute arbitrary and unjustified discrimination and that these measures are maintained without sufficient scientific evidence and are not based on a risk assessment. Third, the United States understands that Mexico may have adopted technical regulations, not constituting sanitary measures, that are applicable to imported swine but not to domestic swine. In the view of the United States the aforementioned three measures are inconsistent with Mexico's obligations under (i) Articles 2.2, 2.3, 3, 5.1, 5.6, 7 and 8 of the SPS Agreement; (ii) Article 4.2 of the Agriculture Agreement; (iii) Articles 2 and 5 of the TBT Agreement; and (iv) Articles III:4 and XI:1 of the GATT 1994. (65) Nicaragua Measures Affecting Imports from Honduras and Colombia (II), request by Honduras (WT/DS201/1). This request, dated 6 June 2000, is in respect of Law 325 of 1999 whereby a tax is established on goods and services coming from or originating in Honduras and Colombia as well as implementing Decree 129-99 and Ministerial Order 041-99. Honduras considers that Law 325 of 1999 and implementing Decree 129-99 are incompatible with Nicaragua's obligations under the GATT 1994, and in particular Articles I and II thereof, and that the aforementioned measures as well as Ministerial Order 041-99 are incompatible with Nicaragua's obligations under Articles II and XVI of the GATS. (64) United States Section 306 of the Trade Act of 1974 and Amendments Thereto, complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS200/1). This request, dated 5 June 2000, concerns Section 306 of the Trade Act of 1974, as last amended by Section 407 of the Trade and Development Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-200). The European Communities considers that Section 306, as amended, provides for a mandatory and unilateral revision of the list of products subject to suspension of GATT 1994 concessions or other Section 301(a) action 120 days after the application of the first suspension and then every 180 days thereafter, in order to affect imports from Members which have been determined by the United States not to have implemented recommendations made pursuant to a ϲʹ dispute settlement proceeding. The European Communities believes that Section 306, as amended, is in breach of the DSU since it mandates unilateral action without any prior multilateral control. The European Communities considers in particular that the measure mandates suspension of or threats to suspend concessions or other obligations other than those on which authorisation was granted by the DSB. As a practical result, all US concessions bound in its Schedule of commitments under the GATT 1994 can, according to the European Communities, be unilaterally modified at will. The European Communities further is of the view that the measure is in breach of the obligation of equivalence, in that it creates a structural imbalance between the cumulative level of the suspension of concessions and the level of nullification and impairment as determined under relevant DSU procedures. In addition, the European Communities considers that the US measure creates a chilling effect on the market-place, thus affecting the security and predictability of the multilateral trading system. The European Communities considers that Section 306 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended by Section 407 of the Trade and Development Act of 2000, is inconsistent with, in particular, the following ϲʹ provisions: Articles 3.2, 21.5, 22 and 23 of the DSU; Article XVI:4 of the ϲʹ Agreement; and Articles I, II and XI of the GATT 1994. (63) Romania Measures on Minimum Import Prices, complaint by the United States (WT/DS198/1). This request, dated 30 May 2000, is in respect of Romania's use of minimum import prices for customs valuation purposes. The measures at issue are the Customs Code of 1997 (L141/1997), the Ministry of Finance General Customs Directive (Ordinance No. 5, 4 August 1998), and other related statutes and regulations. The United States asserts that, pursuant to these measures, Romania has established arbitrary minimum and maximum import prices for such products as meat, eggs, fruits and vegetables, clothing, footwear, and certain distilled spirits. The United States further asserts that Romania has instituted burdensome procedures for investigating import prices when the c.i.f. value falls below the minimum import price. The United States considers that Romania's measures are inconsistent with its obligations under Articles 1 through 7, and 12 of the Customs Valuation Agreement; general notes 1, 2 and 4 of Annex 1 of the Customs Valuation Agreement; Articles II, X, and XI of the GATT 1994; Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture; and Articles 2 and 7 of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing. (62) Brazil Measures on Minimum Import Prices, complaint by the United States (WT/DS197/1). This request, dated 30 May 2000, concerns Brazil's use of minimum import prices for customs valuation purposes. The measures at issue are Decree No. 2.498/98 and other related statutes and regulations, which establish a system to verify the declared values of imported goods. The United States asserts that Brazil utilises this verification system in conjunction with non-automatic import licensing procedures to prohibit or restrict the import of products with declared values below what the United States considers arbitrarily determined minimum prices. The United States considers that Brazil's measures are inconsistent with its obligations under Articles 1 through 7, and 12 of the Customs Valuation Agreement; general notes 1, 2 and 4 of Annex 1 of the Customs Valuation Agreement; Articles II and XI of the GATT 1994; Articles 1 and 3 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures; Articles 2 and 7 of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing; and Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. (61) Argentina Certain Measures on the Protection of Patents and Test Data, complaint by the United States (WT/DS196/1). This request, dated 30 May 2000, concerns Argentina's legal regimes governing patents in Law 24,481 (as amended by Law 24,572), Law 24,603, and Decree 260/96; and data protection in Law 24,766 and Regulation 440/98, and in other related measures. The United States considers that Argentina fails to protect against unfair commercial use of undisclosed test or other data, submitted as a requirement for market approval of pharmaceutical or agricultural chemical products; improperly excludes certain subject matter, including microorganisms, from patentability; fails to provide prompt and effective provisional measures, such as preliminary injunctions, for purposes of preventing infringements of patent rights from occurring; denies certain exclusive rights for patents, such as the protection of products produced by patented processes and the right of importation; fails to provide certain safeguards for the granting of compulsory licenses, including timing and justification safeguards for compulsory licenses granted on the basis of inadequate working; improperly limits the authority of its judiciary to shift the burden of proof in civil proceedings involving the infringements of process patent rights; and places impermissible limitations on certain transitional patents so as to limit the exclusive rights conferred by these patents, and to deny the opportunity for patentees to amend pending applications in order to claim certain enhanced protection provided by the TRIPSAgreement. The United States considers that Argentina's legal regimes governing patents and data protection are therefore inconsistent with Argentina's obligations under the TRIPS Agreement, including Articles 27, 28, 31, 34, 39, 50, 62, 65 and 70 of the Agreement. (60) Ecuador Definitive Anti-Dumping Measure on Cement from Mexico, complaint by Mexico (DS191/1). This request, dated 15 March 2000, concerns a definitive anti-dumping measure imposed by Ecuador, through publication in the Official Register No. 361 of 14 January 2000, on imports of cement from Mexico falling under tariff heading 2523.29.00, as well as Ecuador's actions preceding that measure. Mexico considers that the definitive anti-dumping measure and the actions that preceded it, including the imposition of the provisional anti-dumping measure and the initiation of the investigation, violate, inter alia, Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 18 and Annex II of the Anti-Dumping Agreement as well as Article VI of the GATT 1994. (59) Trinidad and Tobago Provisional Anti-Dumping Measure on Macaroni and Spaghetti from Costa Rica, complaint by Costa Rica (WT/DS187/1). This request, dated 17 January 2000, is in respect of Legal Notice No. 237 of the Ministry of Trade and Industry of Trinidad and Tobago, pursuant to which provisional anti-dumping duties are imposed on the importation of macaroni and spaghetti from Costa Rica, the actions preceding that decision (see DS185) as well as the 1992 Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties Act of 1992, as amended by the Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties (Amendment) Act of 1995 and the Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties Regulations of 1996. Costa Rica claims that these measures are inconsistent particularly with certain paragraphs of Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 18 as well as Annex I and II of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. (58) United States Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 and amendments thereto, complaint by the European Communities and their member States (WT/DS186/1). This request, dated 12 January 2000, is in respect of Section 337 of the US Tariff Act (19 U.S.C. 1337) and the related Rules of Practice and Procedure of the International Trade Commission contained in Chapter II of Title 19 of the US Code of Federal Regulations. The EC and their member States consider that those measures violate Article III of GATT 1994 and TRIPS Agreement Articles 2 (in conjunction with Article 2 Paris Convention), 3, 9 (in conjunction with Article 5 Berne Convention), 27, 41, 42, 49, 50 and 51. (57) Trinidad and Tobago Certain Measures Affecting Imports of Pasta from Costa Rica, complaint by Costa Rica (DS185/1). This request, dated 18 November 1999, is in respect of (i) the anti-dumping investigation being carried out by Trinidad and Tobago at the request of the company "Cereal Products Limited" against imports of pasta from the Costa Rican company "Roma Prince Sociedad Annima", (ii) proceedings undertaken as part of a preliminary hearing prior to the initiation of the anti-dumping investigation, and (iii) Articles 3 and 5 of the 1996 Antidumping and Countervailing Duties Regulation of Tobago and Trinidad. Costa Rica claims that these measures are inconsistent with Articles 2, 3, 5, 6 and 12 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. (56) Brazil Measures on Import Licensing and Minimum Import Prices, complaint by the European Communities (DS183/1). This request, dated 14 October 1999, is in respect of a number of Brazilian measures, particularly Brazil's non-automatic licensing system and the minimum pricing practice, which allegedly restrict EC exports - notably of textile products, Sorbitol and Carboxymethylcellulose (CMC). The EC considers that those Brazilian measures violate, in particular, Articles II, VIII, X and XI of the GATT 1994; Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture; Articles 1, 3, 5 and 8 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures; and Articles 1 through 7 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of the GATT 1994. (55) Ecuador Provisional Anti-Dumping Measure on Cement from Mexico, complaint by Mexico (DS182/1). This request, dated 5 October 1999, concerns a provisional anti-dumping measure imposed by Ecuador, through publication in the Official Register of 14 July 1999, on imports of cement from Mexico falling under tariff heading 2523.29.00, as well as Ecuador's actions preceding that measure. Mexico considers that the provisional anti-dumping measure and the actions preceding it violate, inter alia, Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 18 and Annex II of the Anti-Dumping Agreement as well as Article VI of the GATT 1994. (54) United States Reclassification of Certain Sugar Syrups, complaint by Canada (DS 180/1). This request, dated 6 September 1999, is in respect of the proposed reclassification of certain sugar syrups by the US Customs Service. Canada claims that these US measures are in violation of ArticleII of the GATT 1994 and Article 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture. In addition, Canada alleges that these measures nullify or impair benefits accruing to it under the same provisions of the GATT and the Agreement on Agriculture. (53) European Communities Protection of Trademarks and Geographical Indications for Agricultural Products and Foodstuffs, complaint by the United States (WT/DS174/1). This request, dated 1June1999, is in respect of the alleged lack of protection of trademarks and geographical indications for agricultural products and foodstuffs in the European Communities. The United States contends that EC Regulation 2081/92, as amended, does not provide national treatment with respect to geographical indications and does not provide sufficient protection to pre-existing trademarks that are similar or identical to a geographical indication. The United States considers this situation to be inconsistent with the EC's obligations under the TRIPS Agreement, including but not necessarily limited to Articles 3, 16, 24, 63 and 65 of the TRIPS Agreement. (52)(a) European Communities Measures Relating to the Development of a Flight Management System, complaint from the United States (WT/DS172/1). This request, dated 21 May 1999, is in respect of alleged actionable subsidies granted or maintained to a French company, Sextant Avionique ("Sextant"), to develop a new flight management system ("FMS") adapted to Airbus aircraft. The United States contends that the French government has agreed to grant, and the European Commission has approved, a loan, on preferential and non-commercial terms, in the amount of 140million French francs, to be disbursed over three years, for a project in which Sextant will develop a FMS adapted to Airbus aircraft. The United States considers this aid to be a specific subsidy within the meaning of Articles 1 and 3 of the SCM Agreement, which subsidy has caused and continues to cause adverse effects within the meaning of Article 5 of the SCM Agreement. The United States also contends that this aid has caused and continues to cause serious prejudice within the meaning of Articles 5(c) and 6 of the SCM Agreement because the subsidy may involve the direct forgiveness of debt; may displace or impede imports of FMS from the United States into France; may displace or impede exports of FMS from the United States to third country markets; and may cause significant price undercutting by the subsidised product as compared with the price of a like product of another Member in the same market or may cause significant price suppression, price depression or lost sales in the same market. The United States also believes that this aid has caused and continues to cause a nullification or impairment of benefits accruing directly or indirectly to it under GATT 1994 within the meaning of Article XXIII:1(b) of GATT 1994, and Article 5(b) of the SCM Agreement. (52)(b) France Measures Relating to the Development of a Flight Management System, complaint by the United States (WT/DS173/1). This request is identical to the one addressed to the EC above. (51) Argentina Patent Protection for Pharmaceuticals and Test Data Protection for Agricultural Chemicals, complaint by the United States (WT/DS171/1). This request, dated 6 May 1999, is in respect of (i) the alleged absence in Argentina of either patent protection for pharmaceutical products or an effective system for providing exclusive marketing rights in such products, and (ii) Argentina's alleged failure to ensure that changes in its laws, regulations and practice during the transition period provided under Article 65.2 of the TRIPS Agreement do not result in a lesser degree of consistency with the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement. Under the first limb, the United States contends that the TRIPS Agreement does not permit ϲʹ Members to allow third parties to market products subject to exclusive marketing rights without the consent of the right holder. According to the United States, Argentina's law does not provide product patent protection for pharmaceutical inventions, or a system that conforms to Article 70.9 of the TRIPS Agreement with regard to the grant of exclusive marketing rights. The United States therefore contends that Argentina's legal regime appears to be inconsistent with Articles 27, 65 and 70 of the TRIPS Agreement. Under the second limb, the United States contends that prior to August 1998, Argentina provided a ten year term of protection against unfair commercial use for undisclosed test data or other data submitted to Argentine regulatory authorities in support of applications for marketing approval for agricultural chemical products. The United States further contends that since the issuance in 1998 of Regulation 440/98, which inter alia revoked earlier regulations, Argentina has provided no effective protection for such data against unfair commercial use. The United States therefore alleges that Argentina's legal regime is inconsistent with Article 65.5 of the TRIPS Agreement. (50) South Africa Anti-dumping Duties on the Import of Certain Pharmaceutical Products from India, complaint by India (WT/DS168/1). This request, dated 1 April 1999, is in respect of a recommendation for the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties by the South African Board on Tariffs and Trade (BTT), contained in its Report No. 3799, dated 3 October 1997, on the import of certain pharmaceutical products from India. India alleges that South Africa initiated anti-dumping proceedings against the importation of ampicillin and amoxycillin of 250mg capsules from India. The BTT allegedly made a preliminary determination on 26 March 1997 that ampicillin and amoxycillin of 250mg and 500mg capsules, exported by M/S Randaxy Laboratories Ltd of India, were being dumped into the South African Customs Union (SACU). This was allegedly followed by a recommendation to impose final duties on these products by the BTT, which was reported on 10September 1997. India contends that the definition and calculation by the BTT of normal value is inconsistent with South Africa's ϲʹ obligations, because erroneous methodology was used for determining the normal value and the resulting margin of dumping. India further contends that the determination of injury was not based on positive evidence and did not include an evaluation of all relevant economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the industry, which led to an erroneous determination of material injury suffered by the petitioner. India is also of the view that the South African authorities' establishment of the facts was not proper and that their evaluation was not unbiased or objective. India also claims that the South African authorities have not taken into account India's special situation as a developing country. India alleges violations of Articles 2, 3, 6(a) to(c) individually and in conjunction with 12, 12 and 15 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; and Articles I and VI of GATT 1994. (49) United States Countervailing Duty Investigation with respect to Live Cattle from Canada, complaint by Canada (WT/DS167/1). This request, dated 19 March 1999, concerns the initiation of a countervailing duty investigation by the United States, on 22 December 1998, with respect to live cattle from Canada. Canada contends that the initiation of this investigation is inconsistent with US obligations under the Subsidies Agreement, including the fact that the written application filed with the US Department of Commerce was not made by or on behalf of the domestic industry, and that there was not, sufficient information provided with respect to the measures or actions alleged to be subsidies, for purpose of initiating an investigation under the SCM Agreement. Canada further contends that the measures or actions alleged to be subsidies either are not, in law or fact, subsidies within the meaning of the Subsidies Agreement, or do not confer more than a deminimis level of countervailing subsidy. Canada also believes that this initiation of investigation is inconsistent with US obligations under the Agreement on Agriculture relating to "due restraint". Canada alleges violations of Articles 1, 2, 10, 11.1 11.5, and 13.1 of the Subsidies Agreement; and Article 13 of the Agreement on Agriculture. (48) Hungary Safeguard Measure on Imports of Steel Products from the Czech Republic, complaint by the Czech Republic (WT/DS159/1). This request, dated 21 January 1999, is in respect of the imposition of quantitative restrictions by Hungary on imports of a broad range of steel products from the Czech Republic. The Czech Republic alleges that Hungary imposed a safeguard measure in the form of an import quota on imports of a broad range of steel products from the Czech Republic, and that this measure only applies to the Czech Republic. The Czech Republic contends that these quantitative restrictions are in breach of Hungary's obligations under GATT Articles I and XIX, as well as provisions of the Agreement on Safeguards. (47) European Communities- Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas II, complaint by Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Panama, and the United States (WT/DS158/1). This request, dated 20 January 1999, is in respect of the implementation of the recommendations of the DSB in European Communities Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas. The complaining parties state that the 15-month reasonable period of time for the EC to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings ended on 1 January 1999. The complaining parties contend that the EC modified its regime in a manner that will not permit this dispute to conclude at this time on the basis of a solution that is acceptable to their governments, and as a result, jointly and severally, request consultations with the EC concerning the EC banana regime established by EC Regulation 404/93, as amended and implemented by Council Regulation 1637/98 of 20July1998 and EC Commission Regulation 2362/98 of 28 October 1998. The complaining parties contend that their objective is to clarify and discuss in detail with the EC the various aspects of the EC's modified banana regime, including their effect on the market, their concerns about their ϲʹ-inconsistency, and ways that the EC might modify its regime in order to produce a satisfactory settlement of this dispute. (46) Argentina Anti-Dumping Measures on Imports of Drill Bits from Italy, complaint from the European Communities.(WT/DS157/1). This request, dated 14 January 1998, is in respect of definitive anti-dumping measures allegedly imposed by Argentina on imports of drill bits from Italy. The EC states that on 12 September 1998, Argentina imposed definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of drill bits from Italy. The investigation which led to the imposition of these measures had allegedly been initiated on 21 February 1997. The EC contends that because Argentina's investigation exceeded 18 months, it was in violation of Article 1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. (45) European Communities Measures Affecting Differential and Favourable Treatment of Coffee, complaint by Brazil (WT/DS154/1). This dispute, dated 7 December 1998, is in respect of the special preferential treatment under the EC's Generalised System of Preferences (GSP). Brazil asserts that the EC GSP scheme is applicable to products originating in the Andean Group of countries and the Central American Common Market countries, that are conducting programs to combat drug production and trafficking. In the case of soluble coffee, this special preferential treatment, contained in Council Regulation (EC) No. 1256/96, amounts to duty free access into the EC market. Brazil states that it is aware that there is a proposed Council Regulation which would unify all EC laws and regulations concerning the operation of the GSP scheme for both agricultural and industrial products. Brazil contends that this special treatment adversely affects the importation into the EC of soluble coffee originating in Brazil. Brazil alleges that this special treatment is inconsistent with the Enabling Clause, as well as with Article I of GATT 1994. Brazil further alleges that this special treatment nullifies or impairs benefits accruing to Brazil directly or indirectly under the cited provisions. (44) European Communities Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Products, complaint by Canada (WT/DS153/1). This dispute, dated 2 December 1998, is in respect of the protection of inventions in the area of pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical products under the relevant provisions of EC legislation, particularly Council Regulation (EEC) No. 1768/92 and European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No. 1610/96, in relation to EC obligations under the TRIPS Agreement. Canada contends that under the above Regulations, a patent term extension scheme, which is limited to pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical products, has been implemented. Canada alleges that Regulations (EEC) No. 1768/92 and (EC) No. 1610/96 are inconsistent with the EC's obligations not to discriminate on the basis of field of technology, as provided by Article 27.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, because these Regulations only apply to pharmaceutical and agricultural products. (43) India Measures Affecting Custom Duties, complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS150/1). This dispute, dated 30 October 1998, concerns a series of increases in customs duties allegedly implemented by India. The EC states that the measures in question relate to Schedule1 of the 1975 Customs Tariff Act, the Special Customs Duty, and the Special Additional Duty. The EC contends that under these measures, the aggregate value of tariffs resulting from the addition of the different duties applied by India exceed India's ϲʹ bound rates under a series of tariff headings. The EC alleges violations of Articles II:1(b) and III:2 of GATT 1994. (42) India Import Restrictions, complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS149). This dispute, dated 29 October 1998, concerns import restrictions allegedly maintained by India under its Export and Import Policy, 1997-2002, for reasons other than Article XVIII:B of GATT 1994. The EC states that India notified these restrictions to the ϲʹ in Part A of Annex I to its notification of 20 May 1997 under paragraph 9 of the Understanding on the Balance-of-Payments Provisions of GATT 1994 (WT/BOP/N/24). India claims that these restrictions are justified under Article XX and/or Article XXI of GATT 1994. The EC contends that these import restrictions constitute an infringement of Articles III, X, XI, XIII and XVII of GATT 1994, Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, and Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures, and cannot be justified under Articles XX or XXI of GATT 1994. (41) Czech Republic Measure Affecting Import Duty on Wheat from Hungary, complaint from Hungary (WT/DS148/1). This dispute, dated 12 October 1998, is in respect of a regulation adopted by the Czech Republic which entered into force on 9 October 1998, and which allegedly increased the import duty of wheat originating in Hungary. Hungary asserts that the increased import duty on wheat (HS1001.1000, 1001.9099) exceeds several times the respective bound rates in the Czech Schedule for 1998. Hungary also alleges that it is the only country subject to this measure. Hungary contends that this measure is inconsistent with Articles I and II of GATT 1994, and Article 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture. Hungary invokes the urgency provision of the DSU (4.8), due to the severe economic and trade losses that are being caused by this measure, which is expected to remain in force until 26 April 1999. (40) Japan Tariff Quotas and Subsidies Affecting Leather, complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS147/1). This dispute, dated 8 October 1998, concerns the management of the tariff quotas for leather and the subsidies allegedly benefiting the leather industry and "Dowa" regions in Japan. The EC states that the management of the three tariff quotas is specified in a notice published every year by the Ministry of International Trade & Industry (MITI), which is based on Article 6 of the Ministerial Order on the tariff quota system for heavy oil, crude oil, etc. The EC contends that the complexity of the management of the tariff quota system, as well as the fact that applications for licenses may only be submitted on a single day, appears open to criticism. In addition, the EC further contends that many licenses are granted for quantities without real economic interest, and some have a very short validity period. According to the EC, the system leads to a situation that deters foreign companies from establishing in Japan for purposes of importing leather directly. The EC also contends that subsidies were granted on the basis of the "Law concerning Special Fiscal Measures", which extended the duration of 15 subsidy programmes. The EC considers that these subsidies are specific and that the total value of these different subsidy programmes is liable to cause serious prejudice to its interests. The EC alleges violations of Articles 1(6), 3(5)(g), (h), (i) and (j) of the Import Licensing Agreement, and Article 6 of the Subsidies Agreement. (39) Argentina Countervailing Duties on Imports of Wheat Gluten from the European Communities, complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS145/1). This dispute, dated 23September 1998, is in respect of definitive countervailing duties allegedly imposed by Argentina on imports of wheat gluten from the EC. The EC states that Argentina imposed a countervailing duty on wheat gluten imports from the EC with effect from 23 July 1998. The investigation which led to the imposition of these duties had been initiated on 23 October 1996 and, consequently, the EC contends that the investigation exceeded 18 months, contrary to Article 11.11 of the Subsidies Agreement. The EC also claims a violation of Article 10 of the same Agreement. (38) United States Certain Measures Affecting the Import of Cattle, Swine and Grain from Canada, complaint by Canada (WT/DS144/1). This dispute, dated 25 September 1998, is in respect of certain measures, imposed by the US state of South Dakota and other states, prohibiting entry or transit to Canadian trucks carrying cattle, swine, and grain. Canada contends that these measures adversely affect the importation into the United States of cattle, swine, and grain originating in Canada. Canada alleges violations of Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 13 and Annexes B and C of the SPS Agreement; Articles 2, 3, 5 and 7 of the TBT Agreement; Article 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture; and Articles I, III, V, XI and XXIV:12 of GATT 1994. Canada also makes a claim of nullification or impairment of benefits accruing to it under the cited Agreements. Canada invoked Article 4.8 of the DSU for expedited consultations in view of the perishable nature of the goods in question. (37) Slovak Republic Measure Affecting Import Duty on Wheat from Hungary, complaint from Hungary (WT/DS143/1). This dispute, dated 18 September 1998, is in respect of a regulation adopted by the Slovak Republic which entered into force on 10 September 1998, which allegedly increased the import duty of wheat originating in Hungary. Hungary asserts that the increased import duty on wheat (HS1001.1000, 1001.90) amounts to 2540 SKK/t which equals to approximately 70% adValorem. Hungary alleges that the bound rates for these tariff lines in the Slovak Schedule for 1998 are set at 4.4% (HS1001.1000), 27% (HS1001.9010) and 22.5% (HS1001.9091, 1001.9099). Hungary also alleges that it is the only country subject to this measure. Hungary contends that this measure is inconsistent with Articles I and II of GATT 1994, and Article 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture. Hungary invokes the urgency provision of the DSU due to the severe economic and trade losses that are being caused by this measure, which is expected to remain in force until 10March 1999. (36) European Communities Anti-Dumping Investigations Regarding Unbleached Cotton Fabrics from India, complaint by India (WT/DS140/1). This request, dated 3 August 1998, is in respect of alleged repeated recourse by the EC to anti-dumping actions on unbleached cotton fabrics (UCF), from India. India considers, in the light of the information which has become available before and after the adoption of Regulation 773/98, that the determination of standing, the initiation, the selection of the sample, the determination of dumping and the injury are inconsistent with the EC's ϲʹ obligations. India is also of the view that EC's establishment of the facts was not proper and that EC's evaluation of facts was not unbiased and objective. India also contends that EC has not taken into account the special situation of India as a developing country. India alleges violations of Articles 2.2.1, 2.4.1, 2.4.2, 2.6, 3.3, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 4.1(I), 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.8, 6.10, 7.1(I), 7.4, 9.1, 9.2, 12.1, 12.2 and 15 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, and Articles I and VI of GATT1994. India also alleges nullification and impairment of benefits accruing to it under the cited agreements. (35) European Communities Measures Affecting Imports of Wood of Conifers from Canada, complaint by Canada (WT/DS137/1). This request, dated 17 June 1998, is in respect of certain measures concerning the importation into the EC market of wood of conifers from Canada. The measures include, but are not limited to, Council Directive 77/93, of 21 December 1976, as amended by Commission Directive 92/103/EEC, of 1 December 1992, and any relevant measures adopted by EC Member states affecting imports of wood of conifers from Canada into the EC. Canada alleges that these adversely affect the importation into the EC market of wood of conifers from Canada. Canada alleges violations of Articles I, III and XI of GATT 1994, Articles 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the SPS Agreement, and Article 2 of the TBT Agreement. Canada is also making a claim for nullification and impairment of benefits accruing to it indirectly under the cited agreements. nada contends (34) European Communities - Measures Affecting Import Duties on Rice, complaint by India (DS134). This request, dated 28 May 1998, is in respect of the restrictions allegedly introduced by an EC Regulation establishing a so-called cumulative recovery system (CRS), for determining certain import duties on rice, with effect from 1 July 1997. India contends that the measures introduced through this new regulation will restrict the number of importers of rice from India, and will have a limiting effect on the export of rice from India to the EC. India alleges violations of Articles I, II, III, VII and XI of GATT 1994, Articles 1-7, 11 and Annex I of the Customs Valuation Agreement, Articles 1 and 3 of the Import Licensing Agreement, Article 2 of the TBT Agreement, Article 2 of the SPS Agreement, and Article 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture. India also makes a claim of nullification and impairment of benefits accruing to it under the various agreements cited. (33) Slovak Republic - Measures Concerning the Importation of Dairy Products and the Transit of Cattle, complaint by Switzerland (WT/DS133/1). The request, dated 11 May 1998, concerns measures imposed by the Slovak Republic (in particular, a decree of 6 July 1996) with respect to the importation of dairy products and the transit of cattle. Switzerland contends that these measures have a negative impact on Swiss exports of cheese and cattle. Switzerland alleges that some of these measures are inconsistent with Articles I, III, V, X and XI of GATT 1994, Article 5 of the SPS Agreement, and Article 5 of the Import Licensing Agreement. (32) France - Certain Income Tax Measures Constituting Subsidies, complaint by the United States (WT/DS131/1). This request, dated 5 May 1998, is in respect of prohibited subsidies provided by France. The United States alleges that, based on unofficial English translations of the relevant legislation and descriptions in secondary sources, it is its understanding that under French income tax law, a French company may deduct temporarily, certain start-up expenses of its foreign operations through a tax-deductible reserve account. The United States also believes that a French company may establish a special reserve equal to ten percent of its receivable position at year end for medium-term credit risks in connection with export sales. The United States contends that each of these measures constitute an export subsidy, and that the deduction for start-up expenses constitute an import substitution subsidy, and as such both measures violate Article 3 of the SCM Agreement. (31) Ireland - Certain Income Tax Measures Constituting Subsidies, complaint by the United States (WT/DS130/1). This request, dated 5 May 1998, is in respect of prohibited subsidies provided by Ireland. The United States alleges that, based on unofficial copies of the relevant legislation and descriptions in secondary sources, it is its understanding that under Irish income tax law, "special trading houses" qualify for a special tax rate in respect of trading income from the export sale of goods manufactured in Ireland. The United States contends that this measure constitutes an export subsidy and as such violates Article 3 of the SCM Agreement. (30) Greece - Certain Income Tax Measures Constituting Subsidies, complaint by the United States (WT/DS129/1). This request, dated 5 May 1998, is in respect of prohibited subsidies provided by Greece. The United States alleges that, based on unofficial English translations of relevant legislation and descriptions in secondary sources, it is its understanding that under Greek income tax law, Greek exporters are entitled to a special annual tax deduction calculated as a percentage of export income. The United States contends that this measure constitutes an export subsidy and as such violates Article 3 of the SCM Agreement. (29) Netherlands - Certain Income Tax Measures Constituting Subsidies, complaint by the United States (WT/DS128/1). This request, dated 5 May 1998, is in respect of prohibited subsidies provided by the Netherlands. The United States alleges that, based on unofficial English translations of the relevant legislation and descriptions in secondary sources, it is its understanding that under Dutch income tax law, exporters may establish a special "export reserve" for income derived from export sales. The United States contends that this measure constitutes an export subsidy and as such violates Article 3 of the SCM Agreement. (28) Belgium - Certain Income Tax Measures Constituting Subsidies, complaint by the United States (WT/DS127/1). This request, dated 5 May 1998, is in respect of prohibited subsidies provided by Belgium. The United States alleges that, based on unofficial English translations of relevant legislation and descriptions in secondary sources, it is its understanding that under Belgium income tax law, Belgian corporate taxpayers receive a special BEF 400,000 (index linked) tax exemption for recruiting a departmental head for exports (known as an "export manager"). The United States contends that this measure constitutes an export subsidy and as such violates Article 3 of the SCM Agreement. (27) Argentina - Safeguard Measures on Imports of Footwear, complaint by Indonesia (WT/DS123/1). This request, dated 23 April 1998, is in respect of the same provisional and definitive safeguard measures imposed by Argentina in the above dispute (DS121). On 15 April 1999, Indonesia requested the establishment of a panel. In a communication dated 10 May 1999, Indonesia informed the DSB that it was not pursuing its request for a panel at the next DSB meeting, but that this was without prejudice to its rights under the DSU to resurrect the panel request. (26) India - Measures Affecting Export of Certain Commodities, complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS120/1). This request, dated 16 March 1998, is in respect of India's EXIM Policy (1997-2002), which allegedly sets up a negative list for the export of several commodities. The EC alleges that under this policy, raw hides and skins are listed as products the export of which requires an export licence, and that these licences are systematically refused. The EC contends that this is in effect an export embargo and violates Article XI of GATT 1994. On 12 October 2000, the EC requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting of 23 October 2000, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel. (25) United States - Harbour Maintenance Tax, complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS118/1). This request, dated 6 February 1998, concerns the US Harbour Maintenance Tax (HMT), allegedly introduced by legislation in the US. The EC contends that the HMT violates Articles I, II, III, VIII and X of GATT 1994, as well as the Understanding on the Interpretation of Article II:1(B) of GATT 1994. (24) Canada - Measures Affecting Film Distribution Services, complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS117/1). This request, dated 20 January 1998, is in respect of Canada's alleged measures affecting film distribution services, including the 1987 Policy Decision on film distribution and its application to European companies. The EC contends that these measures violate Articles II and III of GATS. (23) Brazil - Measures Affecting Payment Terms for Imports, complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS116/1). This request, dated 9 January 1998, is in respect of measures affecting payment terms for imports allegedly introduced by the Central Bank of Brazil. The EC contends that these measures violate Articles 3 and 5 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures. (22) Peru - Countervailing Duty Investigation against Imports of Buses from Brazil, complaint by Brazil (WT/DS112/1). This request, dated 23 December 1997, is in respect of a countervailing duty investigation being carried out by Peru at the request of Carroceria Morillas S.A., against imports of buses from Brazil. Brazil contends that the procedures followed by the Peruvian authorities to initiate this investigation are inconsistent with Articles 11 and 13.1 of the Subsidies Agreement. (21) United States - Tariff Rate Quota for Imports of Groundnuts, complaint by Argentina (WT/DS111/1). This request, dated 19 December 1997, is in respect of the alleged commercial detriment to Argentina resulting from a restrictive interpretation by the US of the tariff rate quota negotiated by the two countries during the Uruguay Round, regarding the importation of groundnuts. Argentina alleges violations of Articles II, X and XII of GATT 1994, Articles 1, 4 and 15 of the Agreement on Agriculture, Article 2 of the Agreement on Rules of Origin, and Article 1 of the Import Licensing Agreement. Nullification and impairment of benefits is also alleged. (20) Chile - Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, complaint by the United States (WT/DS109/1). This request, dated 11 December 1997, is in respect of Chile's internal taxes on alcoholic beverages, which allegedly impose a higher tax on imported spirits than on pisco, a locally brewed spirit. The US contends that this differential treatment of imported spirits violates Article III:2 of GATT 1994. Taxes on these beverages are the subject of a complaint by the EC (DS87), in respect of which a panel has already been established. (19) Pakistan - Export Measures Affecting Hides and Skins (WT/DS107/1), complaint by the European Communities. This request, dated 7 November 1997, is in respect of a Notification enacted by the Ministry of Commerce of Pakistan prohibiting the export of, inter alia, hides and skins and wet blue leather made from cow hides and cow calf hides. The EC contends that this measure limits access of EC industries to competitive sourcing of raw and semi-finished materials. (18) European Communities - Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas (WT/DS105/1), complaint by Panama. This request, dated 24 October 197, is in respect of the EC's regime for the importation, sale and distribution of bananas as established through Regulation 404/93, as well as any subsequent legislation, regulations or administrative measures adopted by the EC, including those reflecting the Framework Agreement on Bananas. Panama does not specify provisions which the EC regime violates. This is the same regime that was the subject of a successful challenge by the US, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico (DS27). (17) European Communities - Measures Affecting the Exportation of Processed Cheese (WT/DS104/1), complaint by the United States. This request, dated 8 October 1997, is in respect of export subsidies allegedly granted by the EC on processed cheese without regard to the export subsidy reduction commitments of the EC. The US contends that these measures by the EC distort markets for dairy products and adversely affect US sales of dairy products. The US alleges violations of Articles 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Agreement on Agriculture, and Article 3 of the Subsidies Agreement. (16) Mexico - Anti-Dumping Investigation of High-Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) from the United States, complaint by the United States (WT/DS101/1). This request, dated 4 September 1997, is in respect of an anti-dumping investigation of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) from the United States conducted by Mexico, resulting in a preliminary determination of dumping and injury in an investigation of 25 June 1997, and the consequent imposition of provisional measures on imports of HCFS from the United States. The US alleges violations of Articles 5.5, 6.1.3, 6.2, 6.4 and 6.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. See also DS 132 under "Active panels". (15) United States - Measures Affecting Imports of Poultry Products, complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS100/1). This request, dated 18 August 1997, is in respect of a ban on imports of poultry and poultry products from the EC by the US Department of Agriculture's Food Safety Inspection Service, and any related measures. The EC contends that although the ban is allegedly on grounds of product safety, the ban does not indicate the grounds upon which EC poultry products have suddenly become ineligible for entry into the US market. The EC considers that the ban is inconsistent with Articles I, III, X and XI of GATT 1994, Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement, or Article 2 and 5 of the TBT Agreement. (14) United States - Countervailing Duty Investigation of Imports of Salmon from Chile, complaint by Chile (WT/DS97/1). This request, dated 5 August 1997, is in respect of a countervailing duty investigation initiated by the US Department of Commerce against imports of salmon from Chile. Chile contends that the decision to initiate an investigation was taken in the absence of sufficient evidence of injury, in violation of Article 11.2 and 11.3. Chile also contends a violation of Article 11.4, in relation to the representative status of producers of salmon fillets. (13)(a) Ireland - Measures Affecting the Grant of Copyright and Neighbouring Rights, complaint by the United States (WT/DS82/1). This request, dated 14 May 1997, is in respect Ireland's alleged failure to grant copyright and neighbouring rights under its law. The US contends that this failure violates Ireland's obligations under Articles 9-14, 63, 65 and 70 of the TRIPS Agreement. On 9 January 1998, the United States requested the establishment of a panel. (13)(b) European Communities - Measures Affecting the Grant of Copyright and Neighbouring Rights, complaint by the United States (WT/DS115/1). This request, dated 6 January 1998, raises exactly the same measures as in 16(a) above in respect of Ireland but makes the complaint to the EC. On 9January1998, the United States requested the establishment of a panel. (12) Belgium - Measures Affecting Commercial Telephone Directory Services, complaint by the United States (WT/DS80/1). This request, dated 2 May 1997, is in respect of certain measures of the Kingdom of Belgium governing the provision of commercial telephone directory services. These measures include the imposition of conditions for obtaining a license to publish commercial directories, and the regulation of the acts, policies, and practices of BELGACOM N.V. with respect to telephone directory services. The US alleges violations of Articles II, VI, VIII and XVII of GATS, as well as nullification and impairment of benefits accruing to it under the specific GATS commitments made by the EC on behalf of Belgium. (11) United States - Safeguard Measure Against Imports of Broom Corn Brooms, complaint by Colombia (WT/DS78/1). This request, dated 28 April 1997, is in respect of US Presidential Proclamation 6961 of 28 November 1996, adopting a safeguard measure against imports of broom and corn brooms. Colombia contends that the adoption of this safeguard measure is inconsistent with the obligations of the US under Articles 2, 4, 5, 9 and 12 of the Agreement on Safeguards, Articles II, XIII and XIX of GATT 1994. Colombia also makes a claim for nullification and impairment of benefits under GATT 1994. (10) Canada - Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft, complaint by Brazil (WT/DS71). This request dated 10 March 1997, is in respect of the same measures complained of in WT/DS70. However, the request is made pursuant to Article 7 of the Subsidies Agreement. In this request, Brazil contends that the measures are actionable subsidies within the meaning of Part III of the Subsidies Agreement, and cause adverse effects within the meaning of Article 5 of the Agreement. (9) Japan - Measures Affecting Imports of Pork, complaint by the European Communities, (WT/DS66). This request, dated 15 January 1997, is in respect of certain measures affecting imports of pork and its processed products imposed by Japan. The EC contends that these measures are in violation of Japan's obligations under Articles I, X:3 and XIII of the GATT 1994. The EC also contends that these measures nullify or impair benefits accruing to it under the GATT 1994. (8) United States - Anti-Dumping Measures on Imports of Solid Urea from the Former German Democratic Republic, complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS63). This request, dated 28November 1996, is in respect of Anti-Dumping duties imposed on exports of solid urea from the former German Democratic Republic by the United States. The EC contends that theses measures violate Articles 9 and 11 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. (7) United States - Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, complaint by the Philippines (WT/DS61). This request, dated 25 October 1996, is in respect of a complaint by the Philippines regarding a ban on the importation of certain shrimp and shrimp products from the Philippines imposed by the United States under Section 609 of U.S. Public Law 101-62. Violations of Articles I, II, III, VIII, XI and XIII of GATT 1994 and Article 2 of the TBT Agreement are alleged. A nullification and impairment of benefits under GATT 1994 is also alleged. (See WT/DS58). (6) Mexico - Customs Valuation of Imports, complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS53). This request, dated 27 August 1996, concerns the Mexican Customs Law. The EC claims that Mexico applies CIF value as the basis of customs valuation of imports originating in non-NAFTA countries, while it applies FOB value for imports originating in NAFTA countries. Violation of GATT ArticleXXIV:5(b) is alleged. (5)(a) Brazil - Certain Automotive Investment Measures, complaint by Japan (WT/DS51). This request, dated 30 July 1996, concerns certain automotive investment measures taken by the Brazilian government. Violations of the TRIMs Agreement Article 2, GATT Articles I:1, III:4 and XI:1 as well as the Subsidies Agreement Articles 3, 27.2 and 27.4 are alleged. In addition, Japan makes a non-violation claim under GATT Article XXIII:1(b). (5)(b) Brazil - Certain Measures Affecting Trade and Investment in the Automotive Sector, complaint by the United States (WT/DS52). This request, dated 9 August 1996, concerns the same measures as identified in Japan's request above. Violations of the TRIMs Agreement Article 2, GATT Articles I:1 and III:4 as well as the Subsidies Agreement Articles 3 and 27.4 are alleged. In addition, the UnitedStates also makes a non-violation claim under GATT Article XXIII:1(b). (5)(c) Brazil - Certain Measures Affecting Trade and Investment in the Automotive Sector, complaint by the United States (WT/DS65). This request, dated 10 January 1997, concerns more or less the same measures as in WT/DS52 above. However, this request also includes measures adopted by Brazil subsequent to consultations held with the United States pursuant to the request under WT/DS52, which measures confer benefits to certain companies located in Japan, the Republic of Korea, and the European Communities. The United States alleges violations under Articles I:1 and III:4 of GATT 1994, Article 2 of the TRIMs Agreement, and Articles 3 and 27.4 of the SCM Agreement. The United States has also made a nullification and impairment of benefits claim under Article XXIII:1(b) of GATT 1994. (5)(d) Brazil - Measures Affecting Trade and Investment in the Automotive Sector, complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS81/1). This request, dated 7 May 1997, is in respect of certain measures in the trade and investment sector implemented by Brazil, including in particular, Law No. 9440 of 14 March 1997, Law No. 9449 of 14 March 1997, and Decree No. 1987 of 20 August 1996. The EC contends that these measures violate Articles I:1 and III:4 of GATT 1994, Articles 3, 5 and 27.4 of the Subsidies Agreement, and Article 2 of the TRIMs Agreement. The EC also makes a claim for nullification and impairment of benefits under both GATT 1994 and the Subsidies Agreement. See also DS51, 52 and 65. (4) Japan - Measures Affecting Distribution Services, complaint by the United States (WT/DS45). This request, dated 13 June 1996, concerns Japan's measures affecting distribution services (not limited to the photographic film and paper sector) through the operation of the Large-Scale Retail Store Law, which regulates the floor space, business hours and holidays of supermarkets and department stores. Violations of the GATS Article III (Transparency) and Article XVI (Market Access) are alleged. The US also alleges that these measures nullify or impair benefits accruing to the US (a non-violation claim). See 5(4) above. The United States requested further consultations with Japan on 20 September 1996, expanding the factual and legal basis of its claim. (3) Brazil - Countervailing Duties on Imports of Desiccated Coconut and Coconut Milk Powder from Sri Lanka, complaint by Sri Lanka (WT/DS30). This request, dated 23 February 1996, claims that Brazil's imposition of countervailing duties on Sri Lanka's export of desiccated coconut and coconut milk powder is inconsistent with GATT Articles I, II and VI and Article 13(a) of the Agriculture Agreement (the so-called peace clause). See WT/DS22. (2)(a) Turkey - Restrictions on Imports of Textile and Clothing Products, complaint by Hong Kong (WT/DS29). This request, dated 12 February 1996, claims that Turkey's quantitative restrictions on imports of textile and clothing products are in violation of GATT Articles XI and XIII. The background to this dispute is a recently concluded customs union agreement between Turkey and the European Communities. Hong Kong claims that GATT Article XXIV does not entitle Turkey to impose new quantitative restrictions in the present case. (2)(b) Turkey - Restrictions on Imports of Textile and Clothing Products, complaint by Thailand (WT/DS47). This request for consultations, dated 20 June 1996, concerns Turkey's imposition of quantitative restrictions on imports of textile and clothing products from Thailand. Violations of GATT Articles I, II, XI and XIII as well as Article 2 of the Textiles Agreement are alleged. Earlier, Hong Kong (WT/DS29) and India (WT/DS34) separately requested consultations with Turkey on the same measure. (1)(a) Korea - Measures Concerning the Testing and Inspection of Agricultural Products, complaint by the United States (WT/DS3). Request circulated on 6 April 1995. The dispute involves testing and inspection requirements with respect to imports of agricultural products into Korea. The measures are alleged to be in violation of GATT ArticlesIII or XI, Articles2 and 5 of the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS), TBTArticles5 and 6 and Agriculture Article4. See below. (1)(b) Korea - Measures Concerning Inspection of Agricultural Products, complaint by the United States (WT/DS41). This request for consultations, dated 24 May 1996, concerns testing, inspection and other measures required for the importation of agricultural products into Korea. The United States claims these measures restrict imports and appear to be inconsistent with the ϲʹ Agreement. Violations of GATT Articles III and XI, SPS Articles 2, 5 and 8, TBT Articles 2, 5 and 6, and Article4 of the Agreement on Agriculture are alleged. The United States requested consultations with Korea on similar issues on 4 April 1995 (WT/DS3/1). See above. Completed Cases (most recent listed first) Appellate and Panel Reports Adopted before 1 January 2001 (41) Guatemala - Definitive Anti-dumping Measure regarding Grey Portland Cement from Mexico, complaint by Mexico (WT/DS156). This request, dated 5 January 1999, concerns definitive anti-dumping duties imposed by the authorities of Guatemala on imports of grey Portland cement from Mexico and the proceedings leading thereto. Mexico alleges that the definitive anti-dumping measure is inconsistent with Articles 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 18 of the Antidumping Agreement and its Annexes I and II, as well as with Article VI of GATT 1994. See also 2(4). At its meeting on 22September 1999, the DSB established a panel. The EC, Ecuador, Honduras and the United States reserved their third-party rights. The panel report was circulated on 24 October 2000. The panel concluded that Guatemala's initiation of an investigation, the conduct of the investigation and imposition of a definitive measure on imports of grey portland cement from Mexico's Cruz Azul is inconsistent with the requirements in the AD Agreement in that: (a) Guatemala's determination that there was sufficient evidence of dumping and threat of injury to initiate an investigation, is inconsistent with Article5.3 of the AD Agreement; (b) Guatemala's determination that there was sufficient evidence of dumping and threat of injury to initiate an investigation and consequent failure to reject the application for anti-dumping duties by Cementos Progreso is inconsistent with Article5.8 of the AD Agreement; (c) Guatemala's failure to timely notify Mexico under Article5.5 of the AD Agreement is inconsistent with that provision; (d) Guatemala's failure to meet the requirements for a public notice of the initiation of an investigation is inconsistent with Article12.1.1 of the AD Agreement; (e) Guatemala's failure to timely provide the full text of the application to Mexico and Cruz Azul is inconsistent with Article6.1.3 of the AD Agreement; (f) Guatemala's failure to grant Mexico access to the file of the investigation is inconsistent with Articles 6.1.2 and 6.4 of the AD Agreement; (g) Guatemala's failure to timely make Cementos Progreso's 19 December 1996 submission available to Cruz Azul until 8 January 1997 is inconsistent with Article6.1.2 of the AD Agreement; (h) Guatemala's failure to provide two copies of the file of the investigation as requested by Cruz Azul is inconsistent with Article6.1.2 of the AD Agreement; (i) Guatemala's extension of the period of investigation requested by Cementos Progreso without providing Cruz Azul with a full opportunity for the defence of its interest is inconsistent with Article6.2 of the AD Agreement; (j) Guatemala's failure to inform Mexico of the inclusion of nongovernmental experts in the verification team is inconsistent with paragraph 2 of Annex I of the AD Agreement; (k) Guatemala's failure to require Cementos Progreso's to provide a statement of the reasons why summarization of the information submitted during verification was not possible is inconsistent with Article6.5.1 of the AD Agreement; (l) Guatemala's decision to grant Cementos Progreso's 19 December submission confidential treatment on its own initiative is inconsistent with Article6.5 of the AD Agreement; (m) Guatemala's failure to "inform all interested parties of the essential facts under consideration which form the basis for the decision whether to apply definitive measures" is inconsistent with Article6.9 of the AD Agreement; (n) Guatemala's recourse to "best information available" for the purpose of making its final dumping determination is inconsistent with Article6.8 of the AD Agreement; (o) Guatemala's failure to take into account imports by MATINSA in its determination of injury and causality is inconsistent with Articles 3.1, 3.2 and 3.5 of the AD Agreement; and (p) Guatemala's failure to evaluate all relevant factors for the examination of the impact of the allegedly dumped imports on the domestic industry is inconsistent with Article3.4. At its meeting of 17 November 2000, the DSB adopted the panel report. (40) Canada Patent Protection Term, complaint by the United States (WT/DS170/1). This request, dated 6 May 1999, is in respect of the term of protection granted to patents that were filed in Canada before 1 October 1989. The United States contends that the TRIPS Agreement obligates Members to grant a term of protection for patents that runs at least until twenty years after the filing date of the underlying protection, and requires each Member to grant this minimum term to all patents existing as of the date of the application of the Agreement to that Member. The United States alleges that under the Canadian Patent Act, the term granted to patents issued on the basis of applications filed before 1October 1989 is 17 years from the date on which the patent is issued. The United States contends that this situation is inconsistent with Articles 33, 65 and 70 of the TRIPS Agreement. On 15 July 1999, the United States requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 22 September 1999, the DSB established a panel. The report of the panel was circulated to Members on 5 May 2000. The panel first found that, pursuant to Article 70.2 of the TRIPS Agreement, Canada was required to apply the relevant obligations of the TRIPS Agreement to inventions protected by patents that were in force on 1 January 1996, i.e. the date of entry into force for Canada of the TRIPS Agreement. The panel then went on to find that Section 45 of Canada's Patent Act does not make available a term of protection that does not end before 20 years from the date of filing as mandated by Article 33 of the TRIPS Agreement, thus rejecting, inter alia, Canada's argument that the 17-year statutory protection under its Patent Act was effectively equivalent to the 20-year term prescribed by the TRIPS Agreement because of average pendency periods for patents, informal and statutory delays etc. On 19 June 2000, Canada notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed by the panel. The Appellate Body report was circulated to Members on 18 September 2000. The Appellate Body upheld all of the findings and conclusions of the panel that were appealed. The DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as upheld by the Appellate Body report, on 12 October 2000. (39)(a) United States - Anti-Dumping Act of 1916, complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS136). This request, dated 9 June 1998, is in respect of the alleged failure of the United States to repeal its Anti-Dumping Act of 1916. The EC contends that the US Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 is still in force and is applicable to the import and internal sale of any foreign product irrespective of its origin, including products originating in countries which are ϲʹ Members. The EC also alleges that the 1916 Act exists in the US statute books in parallel with the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, which includes the US implementing legislation of multilateral Anti-Dumping provisions. The EC alleges violations of ArticlesIII:4, VI:1, and VI:2 of GATT 1994, Article XVI:4 of the ϲʹ Agreement, and Articles 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. On 11 November 1998, the EC requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 1 February 1999, the DSB established a panel. India, Japan, and Mexico reserved their third-party rights. The report of the panel was circulated to Members on 31 March 2000. The panel considered that Article VI:1 of GATT 1994 applies to any situation where a Member addresses the type of transnational price discrimination defined in that Article. The panel then found that, on the basis of the terms of the 1916 Act, its legislative history and its interpretation by US courts, the transnational price discrimination test found in the 1916 Act met the definition of Article VI:1 of GATT 1994. The panel next went on to find that (1), by not providing exclusively for the injury test set out in Article VI, the 1916 Act violated Article VI:1 of the GATT 1994; that (2), by providing for the imposition of treble damages, fines or imprisonment, instead of anti-dumping duties, the 1916 Act violated Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994; that (3), by not providing for a number of procedural requirements found in the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the 1916 Act violated Articles 1, 4 and 5.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; and that (4), by violating Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT 1994, the 1916 Act violated Article XVI:4 of the ϲʹ Agreement. On 29 May 2000, the United States notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed by the panel. The Appellate Body report was circulated to Members on 28 May 2000. The Appellate Body upheld all of the findings and conclusions of the panel that were appealed. The DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as upheld by the Appellate Body report, on 26 September 2000. (39)(b) United States Anti-Dumping Act of 1916, complaint by Japan (WT/DS162/1). This dispute, dated 10 February 1999, is in respect of the US Anti-Dumping Act of 1916, 15U.S.C. 72 (1994), ("US 1916 Act"). Japan alleges that the US 1916 Act stipulates that the importation or sale of imported goods within the US market in certain circumstances is unlawful, constituting a criminal offence and inviting civil liability. Japan further alleges that judicial decisions under the US 1916 Act are made without the procedural safeguards provided for in the Anti-Dumping Agreement. Japan states that a court action has been brought under the US 1916 Act against affiliates of Japanese companies. Japan contends that the US 1916 Act is inconsistent with ArticlesIII, VI and XI of GATT1994, and the Anti-Dumping Agreement. The European Communities has also instituted dispute settlement proceedings against the US 1916 Act, which dispute is now pending before a panel (DS136). On 3 June 1999, Japan requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 26July1999, the DSB established a panel. The EC and India reserved their third-party rights. The report of the panel was circulated to Members on 29 May 2000. The panel considered that Article VI:1 of GATT 1994 applies to any situation where a Member addresses the type of transnational price discrimination defined in that Article. The panel then found that, on the basis of the terms of the 1916 Act, its legislative history and its interpretation by US courts, the transnational price discrimination test found in the 1916 Act met the definition of Article VI:1 of GATT 1994. The panel next went on to find that (1), by providing for the imposition of treble damages, fines or imprisonment, instead of anti-dumping duties, the 1916 Act violated Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994 and Article 18.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; that (2), by not providing for a number of procedural requirements found in Article VI:1 of the GATT 1994 and the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the 1916 Act violated Articles VI:1 of the GATT 1994 and Articles 1, 4.1, 5.1, 5.2, 5.4 and 18.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; and that (3), by violating Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT 1994, and Articles 1, 4.1, 5.1, 5.2, 5.4 and 18.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the 1916 Act violated Article XVI:4 of the ϲʹ Agreement and Article 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. On 29 May 2000, the United States notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed by the panel. The Appellate Body report was circulated to Members on 28 May 2000. The Appellate Body upheld all of the findings and conclusions of the panel that were appealed. The DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as upheld by the Appellate Body report, on 26 September 2000. (38) United States Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act, complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS160/1). This request, dated 26 January 1999, is in respect of Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act, as amended by the Fairness in Music Licensing Act, which was enacted on 27October1998. The EC contends that Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act permits, under certain conditions, the playing of radio and television music in public places (bars, shops, restaurants, etc.) without the payment of a royalty fee. The EC considers that this statute is inconsistent with US obligations under Article 9(1) of the TRIPS Agreement, which requires Members to comply with Articles 1-21 of the Berne Convention. On 15 April 1999, the European Communities requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 26 May 1999, the DSB established a panel. Australia, Japan and Switzerland reserved their third-party rights. The report of the panel was circulated to Members on 15 June 2000. The dispute centered on the compatibility of two exemptions provided for in Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act with Article 13 of the TRIPS Agreement, which allows certain limitations or exceptions to exclusive rights of copyright holders, subject to the condition that such limitations are confined to certain special cases, do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work in question and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder. The so-called "business" exemption, provided for in sub-paragraph (B) of Section 110(5), essentially allows the amplification of music broadcasts, without an authorization and a payment of a fee, by food service and drinking establishments and by retail establishments, provided that their size does not exceed a certain square footage limit. It also allows such amplification of music broadcasts by establishments above this square footage limit, provided that certain equipment limitations are met. The so-called "homestyle" exemption, provided for in sub-paragraph (A) of Section 110(5), allows small restaurants and retail outlets to amplify music broadcasts without an authorization of the right holders and without the payment of a fee, provided that they use only homestyle equipment (i.e. equipment of a kind commonly used in private homes). The panel found that the "business" exemption provided for in sub-paragraph (B) of Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act did not meet the requirements of Article 13 of the TRIPS Agreement and was thus inconsistent with Articles 11bis(1)(iii) and 11(1)(ii) of the Berne Convention (1971) as incorporated into the TRIPS Agreement by Article 9.1 of that Agreement. The panel noted, inter alia, that a substantial majority of eating and drinking establishments and close to half of retail establishments were covered by the business exemption. The panel further found that the "homestyle" exemption provided for in sub-paragraph (A) of Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act met the requirements of Article 13 of the TRIPS Agreement and was thus consistent with Articles 11bis(1)(iii) and 11(1)(ii) of the Berne Convention (1971) as incorporated into the TRIPS Agreement by Article 9.1 of that Agreement. Here, the panel noted certain limits imposed on the beneficiaries of the exemption, permissible equipment and categories of works as well as the practice by US courts. The DSB adopted the panel report at its meeting on 27 July 2000. (37) Korea Measures Affecting Government Procurement, complaint by the United States (WT/DS163/1). This dispute, dated 16 February 1999, is in respect of certain procurement practices of the Korean Airport Construction Authority (KOACA), and other entities concerned with the procurement of airport construction in Korea, which are allegedly inconsistent with Korea's obligations under the Agreement on Government Procurement (GPA). These allegedly include practices relating to qualification for bidding as a prime contractor, domestic partnering, and the absence of access to challenge procedures that are in breach of the GPA. The United States contends that KOACA and the other entities are within the scope of Korea's list of central government entities as specified in Annex 1 of Korea's obligations in Appendix I of the GPA, and pursuant to Article I(1) of the GPA, apply to the procurement of airport construction. On 11 May 1999, the United States requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 16 June 1999, the DSB established a panel. The EC and Japan reserved their third party rights. The report of the panel was circulated to Members on 1 May 2000. The panel found that the entities conducting procurement for the project at issue were not covered entities under Korea's Appendix I of the GPA and were not otherwise covered by Korea's obligations under the GPA. The panel further concluded that, based on less than complete Korean answers to certain US question during negotiations for Korea's accession to the GPA, there had initially been an error on the part of the US as to which Korean authority was in charge of the project at issue. However, in light of all the facts the panel considered that there was notice of the error and the US should at least have conducted further inquiries in this regard before the negotiations were ended. The panel therefore found that the US had not demonstrated that benefits reasonably expected to accrue under the GPA, or in the negotiations resulting in Korea's accession to the GPA, were nullified or impaired by measures taken by Korea (whether or not in conflict with the provisions of the GPA), within the meaning of Article XXII:2 of the GPA. The DSB adopted the panel report at its meeting on 19 June 2000. (36)(a) Canada Certain Measures Affecting the Automotive Industry, complaint by Japan (WT/DS139/1). This request, dated 3 July 1998, is in respect of measures being taken by Canada in the automotive industry. Japan contends that under Canadian legislation implementing an automotive products agreement (Auto Pact) between the US and Canada, only a limited number of motor vehicle manufacturers are eligible to import vehicles into Canada duty free and to distribute the motor vehicles in Canada at the wholesale and retail distribution levels. Japan further contends that this duty-free treatment is contingent on two requirements: (i) a Canadian value-added (CVA) content requirement that applies to both goods and services; and (ii) a manufacturing and sales requirement. Japan alleges that these measures are inconsistent with Articles I:1, III:4 and XXIV of GATT 1994, Article 2 of the TRIMs Agreement, Article 3 of the SCM Agreement, and Articles II, VI and XVII of GATS. On 12November1998, Japan requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 1 February 1999, the DSB established a panel. Pursuant to Article 9.1 of the DSU, the DSB agreed that the panel also examine the complaint by the EC in DS141 (see below). India, Korea, and the United States reserved their third-party rights. The report of the panel was circulated to Members on 11 February 2000. The panel found that the conditions under which Canada granted its import duty exemption were inconsistent with Article I of GATT 1994 and not justified under Article XXIV of GATT 1994. It further found the application of the CVA requirements to be inconsistent with Article III:4 of GATT 1994. The panel also found that the import duty exemption constitutes a prohibited export subsidy in violation of Article 3.1(a) of the SCM Agreement. In addition, the panel found that the manner in which Canada conditioned access to the import duty exemption is inconsistent with Article II of GATS and could not justified under Article V of GATS. Finally, the panel found that the application of the CVA requirements constitutes a violation of Article XVII of the GATS. On 2 March 2000, Canada notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed by the panel. The Appellate Body report was circulated to Members on 31 May 2000. The Appellate Body reversed the panel's conclusion that Article 3.1(b) of the Subsidies Agreement did not extend to contingency "in fact". The Appellate Body further considered that the panel had failed to examine whether the measure at issue affected trade in services as required under Article I:1 of the GATS. In addition, the Appellate Body reversed the panel's conclusion that the import duty exemption was inconsistent with the requirements of Article II:1 of the GATS as well as the panel's findings leading to that conclusion. The DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body report, on 19 June 2000. (36)(b) Canada Certain Measures Affecting the Automotive Industry, complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS142/1). This request, dated 17 August 1998, is in respect of the same measures raised by Japan in DS139 and cites the same provisions alleged to be in violation, except for Article XXIV of GATT 1994, which was cited by Japan but is not cited by the EC. On 14 January 1998, the EC requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 1 February 1999, the DSB established a panel. Pursuant to Article 9.1 of the DSU, the DSB agreed that the panel established in respect of the complaint by Japan (DS139) also examine this complaint. See DS139 above. (35) United States Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Certain Hot-rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products Originating in the United Kingdom, complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS138/1). This request, dated 30 June 1998, is in respect of the alleged imposition of countervailing duties on certain hot-rolled lead and bismuth carbon steel (leaded bars) from the UK. The EC contends that the US imposed countervailing duties of 1.69 per cent on United Engineering Steels Ltd (UES) for the review period 1 January 1994 to 31 December 1994, and of 2.4 per cent for the review period 1 January 1995 to 20 March 1995, on the basis of subsidies which had been granted to British Steel Corporation (BSC). The EC also contends that the US imposed countervailing duties on British Steel plc (BSplc) / British Steel Engineering Steels LTD (BSES) for the review period 1 January 1996 to 31December 1996 on the basis of subsidies granted to BSC before its privatization in 1988. The EC alleges that these impositions of countervailing duties constitute a violation of Articles 1.1(b), 10, 14 and 19.4 of the Subsidies Agreement. On 14 January 1999, the EC requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 17 February 1999, the DSB established a panel. Brazil and Mexico reserved their third-party rights. The report of the panel was circulated to Members on 23 December 1999. The panel found that by imposing countervailing duties on 1994, 1995 and 1996 imports of leaded bars produced by UES and BSES respectively, the United States violated Article 10 of the Subsidies Agreement. In reaching this conclusion, the panel noted that the presumption of "benefit" flowing from untied, non-recurring "financial contributions" even after changes in ownership was rebutted in the circumstances surrounding the changes in ownership leading to the creation of UES and BSplc/BSES respectively, inter alia, because the change in ownership involved the payment of consideration for the productive assets etc. acquired by those entities from BSC. According to the panel, the United States should therefore have examined whether the production of leaded bars by UES and BSplc/BSES respectively, and not BSC, was subsidised. On 27 January 2000, the US notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed by the panel. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members on 10 May 2000. The Appellate Body upheld all of the findings of the panel that were appealed but on one point corrected the reasoning of the panel. The DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the panel report, as upheld by the Appellate Body report, on 7 June 2000. (34) Canada - Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products, complaint by the European Communities and their member States (WT/DS114/1). This request, dated 19 December 1997, is in respect of the alleged lack of protection of inventions by Canada in the area of pharmaceuticals under the relevant provisions of the Canadian implementing legislation, in particular the Patent Act. The EC contends that Canada's legislation is not compatible with its obligations under the TRIPS Agreement, because it does not provide for the full protection of patented pharmaceutical inventions for the entire duration of the term of protection envisaged by Articles 27.1, 28 and 33 of the TRIPS Agreement. On 11 November 1998 the EC requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 1 February 1999, the DSB established a panel. Australia, Brazil, Colombia, Cuba, India, Israel, Japan, Poland, Switzerland, and the United States reserved their third-party rights. The report of the panel was circulated to Members on 17 March 2000. The panel found that the so-called regulatory review exception provided for in Canada's Patent Act (Section 55.2(1)) the first aspect of the Patent Act challenged by the EC - was not inconsistent with Article 27.1 of the TRIPS Agreement and was covered by the exception in Article 30 of the TRIPS Agreement and therefore not inconsistent with Article 28.1 of the TRIPS Agreement. Under the regulatory review exception, potential competitors of a patent owner are permitted to use the patented invention, without the authorization of the patent owner during the term of the patent, for the purposes of obtaining government marketing approval, so that they will have regulatory permission to sell in competition with the patent owner by the date on which the patent expires. As regards the second aspect of the Patent Act challenged by the EC, the so-called stockpiling exception (Section 55.2(2)), the panel found a violation of Article 28.1 of the TRIPS Agreement that was not covered by the exception in Article 30 of the TRIPS Agreement. Under the stockpiling exception, competitors are allowed to manufacture and stockpile patented goods during a certain period before the patent expires, but the goods cannot be sold until after the patent expires. The panel considered that, unlike the regulatory review exception, the stockpiling exception constituted a substantial curtailment of the exclusionary rights required to be granted to patent owners under Article 28.1 to such an extent that it could not be considered to be a limited exception within the meaning of Article 30 of the TRIPS Agreement. The DSB adopted the panel report at its meeting on 7 April 2000. (33) United States - Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations" (WT/DS108/1), complaint by the European Communities. This request, dated 18 November 1997, is in respect of Sections 921-927 of the US Internal Revenue Code and related measures, establishing special tax treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations" (FSC). The EC contends that these provisions are inconsistent with US obligations under Articles III:4 and XVI of the GATT 1994, Articles 3.1(a) and (b) of the Subsidies Agreement, and Articles 3 and 8 of the Agreement on Agriculture. On 1 July 1998, the EC requested the establishment of a Panel. In the request for a panel, the EC invoked Article 3.1(a) and (b) of the Subsidies Agreement, and Articles 3 and 8, 9 and 10 of the Agreement on Agriculture, and did not pursue the claims under the GATT 1994. At its meeting on 22 September 1998, the DSB established a panel. Barbados, Canada and Japan reserved their rights as third-parties to the dispute. The panel found that, through the FSC scheme, the United States has acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 3.1(a) of the Subsidies Agreement as well as with its obligations under Article 3.3 of the Agreement on Agriculture (and consequently with its obligations under Article 8 of that Agreement). The report of the panel was circulated to Members on 8 October 1999. On 28 October 1999, the US notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed by the panel. On 2 November 1999, the US withdrew its notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 30 of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review, stating that the withdrawal was conditional on its right to file a new notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 20 of the Working Procedures. On 26 November 1999, the US notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed by the panel. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members on 24February 2000. The Appellate Body upheld the panel's finding that the FSC measure constituted a prohibited subsidy under Article 3.1(a) of the SCM Agreement. However, the Appellate Body reversed the panel's finding that the FSC measure involved "the provision of subsidies to reduce the costs of marketing exports" of agricultural products under Article 9.1(d) of the Agriculture Agreement and, in consequence, reversed the panel's findings that the US had acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 3.3 of the Agriculture Agreement. The Appellate Body further found that the US acted inconsistently with its obligations under Articles 10.1 and 8 of the Agriculture Agreement by applying export subsidies, through the FSC measure, in a manner which results in, or threatens to lead to, circumvention of its export subsidy commitments with respect to agricultural products. The Appellate Body also emphasized that it was not ruling that a Member must choose one kind of tax system over another so as to be consistent with that Member's ϲʹ obligations. The DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body report, at its meeting on 20 March 2000. (32) Mexico - Anti-Dumping Investigation of High-Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) from the United States, complaint by the United States (DS132). This request, dated 8 May 1998, is in respect of an anti-dumping investigation of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) grades 42 and 55 from the US, conducted by Mexico. The US alleges that on 27 February 1997, the Government of Mexico published a notice initiating this anti-dumping investigation on the basis of an application dated 14 January 1997 from the Mexican National Chamber of Sugar and Alcohol Producers. The US further alleges that on 23January1998, Mexico issued a notice of final determination of dumping and injury in that investigation, and consequently imposed definitive anti-dumping measures on these imports from the United States. The US contends that the manner in which the application for an anti-dumping investigation was made, as well as the manner in which a determination of threat of injury was made, is inconsistent with Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 12 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. On 8 October 1998, the US requested the establishment of a panel. The DSB established a panel at its meeting on 25November 1998. Jamaica reserved its third-party rights. The panel found that Mexico's initiation of the anti-dumping investigation on imports of HFCS from the US was consistent with the requirements of Articles 5.2, 5.3, 5.8, 12.1 and 12.1.1(iv) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. The panel found, however, that Mexico's imposition of the definitive anti-dumping measure on imports of HFCS from the US was inconsistent with the following provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement: Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.7 and 3.7(i); Article 7.4; Article 10.2; Article 10.4; and Articles 12.2 and 12.2.2. The report of the panel was circulated to Members on 28 January 2000. The DSB adopted the panel report at its meeting on 24 February 2000. (31) United States Sections 301-310 of the Trade Act of 1974, complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS152/1). This dispute, dated 25 November 1998, is in respect of Title III, chapter 1 (sections 301-310) of the US Trade Act of 1974 (the Trade Act), as amended, and in particular sections 306 and 305 of this Act. The EC contends that by imposing strict time limits within which unilateral determinations must be made and trade sanctions taken, sections 306 and 305 of the Trade Act do not allow the US to comply with the rules of the DSU in situations where a prior multilateral ruling under the DSU on conformity of measures taken pursuant to implementation of DSB recommendations has not been adopted by the DSB. The EC further contends, that the DSU procedure resulting in a multilateral finding, even if initiated immediately after the end of the reasonable period of time for implementation, cannot be finalised, nor can subsequent DSU procedure for seeking compensation or suspension of concessions be complied with, within the time limits of sections 306 and 305. The EC alleges that Title III, chapter 1(sections 301-310) of the Trade Act, as amended, and in particular sections 306 and 305 of the Act, are inconsistent with Articles 3, 21, 22 and 23 of the DSU; Article XVI:4 of the ϲʹ Agreement; and Articles I, II, III, VIII and XI of GATT 1994. The EC also alleges that the Trade Act nullifies and impairs benefits accruing, directly or indirectly, to it under GATT 1994, and also impedes the objectives of GATT 1994 and of the ϲʹ. On 26January 1999, the EC requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 2March 1999, the DSB established a panel. Brazil, Canada, Cameroon, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Hong Kong, India, Israel, Jamaica, Japan, Korea, St. Lucia and Thailand reserved their third-party rights. The Panel found that Sections 304(a)(2)(A), 305(a) and 306(b) of the US Trade Act of 1974 were not inconsistent with Article 23.2(a) or (c) of the DSU or with any of the GATT 1994 provisions cited. The panel noted that its findings were based in full or in part on US undertakings articulated in the Statement of Administrative Action approved by the US Congress at the time it implemented the Uruguay Round agreements and confirmed in the statements by the US to the panel. The panel stated therefore that should those undertakings be repudiated or in any other way removed, its findings of conformity would no longer be warranted. The report of the panel was circulated to Members on 22 December 1999. The DSB adopted the panel report at its meeting on 27 January 2000. (30) Argentina - Safeguard Measures on Imports of Footwear, complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS121/1). This request, dated 3 April 1998, is in respect of provisional and definitive safeguard measures imposed by Argentina on imports of footwear. The EC alleges that by Resolution 226/97 of 24 February 1997, Argentina imposed a provisional safeguard measure in the form of specific duties on imports of footwear effective from 25 February 1997, which was followed by Resolution 987/97, which imposed a definitive safeguard measure on these imports effective from 13September 1997. The EC contends that the above measures violate Articles 2, 4, 5, 6 and 12 of the Agreement on Safeguards, and Article XIX of GATT 1994. On 10 June 1998, the EC requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 23 July 1998, the DSB established a panel. Brazil, Indonesia, Paraguay, the US and Uruguay reserved their rights as third-parties to the dispute. The panel found that Argentina's measure is inconsistent with Articles 2 and 4 of the Agreement on Safeguards. The report of the panel was circulated on 25 June 1999. On 15September 1999, Argentina notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed by the Panel. The Appellate Body upheld the panel's finding that Argentina's measure is inconsistent with Articles 2 and 4 of the Agreement on Safeguards, but reversed certain findings and conclusions of the panel in respect of the relationship between the Agreement on Safeguards and Article XIX of GATT 1994 and the justification of imposing safeguard measures only on non-MERCOSUR third country sources of supply. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members on 14 December 1999. The DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report, as modified by the Appellate Body Report, on 12 January 2000. (29) Korea - Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Certain Dairy Products, complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS98/1). This request, dated 12 August 1997, is in respect of a definitive safeguard measure imposed by Korea on imports of certain dairy products. The EC contends that under the provisions of different governmental measures, Korea has imposed a safeguard measure in the form of an import quota on imports of certain dairy products. The EC considers that this measure is in violation of Articles 2, 4, 5 and 12 of the Agreement on Safeguard Measures, as well as a violation of Article XIX of GATT 1994. On 9 January 1998, the EC requested the establishment of a panel. At the DSB meeting on 22 January 1998, the EC informed the DSB that it was for the time being not pursuing the panel request. On 10 June 1998, the EC made a fresh request for a panel. At its meeting on 23July1998, the DSB established a panel. The panel found that Korea's measure is inconsistent with Articles 4.2(a), and 5 of the Agreement on Safeguards, but rejected the EC claims under Article XIX of GATT1994, Articles 2.1, 12.1 (although it found that Korea's notifications to the Committee on Safeguards were not timely, and to that extent were inconsistent with Article 12.1), 12.2 and 12.3 of the Agreement on Safeguards. The report of the panel was circulated to Members on 21 June 1999. On 15September 1999, Korea notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed by the Panel. The Appellate Body reversed one of the panel's conclusions on the interpretation of Article XIX of GATT 1994 and its relationship with the Agreement on Safeguards; upheld one, but reversed another of the panel's interpretations of Article 5.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards; and concluded that Korea violated Article 12.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, thereby reversing in part the panel's finding. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members on 14December 1999. The DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report, as modified by the Appellate Body Report, on 12 January 2000. (28)(a) Chile - Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS87/1). This request, dated 4 June 1997, is in respect of Chile's Special Sales Tax on spirits, which allegedly imposes a higher tax on imported spirits than on Pisco, a locally brewed spirit. The EC contends that this differential treatment of imported spirits violates Article III:2 of GATT 1994. On 3 October 1997, the EC requested the establishment of a panel. The DSB established a panel on 18 November 1997. Canada, Mexico, Peru and the US reserved their third-party rights. See DS110 below. (28)(b) Chile - Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS110/1). This request, dated 15 December 1997, is in respect of Chile's internal tax regime for alcoholic beverages complained of by the EC (DS87) and by the US (DS109). In essence, this new request by the EC takes issue with the modification to the law on taxation on alcoholic beverages passed by Chile to address the concerns of the EC in DS87. The EC contends that the modified law still violates Article III:2 of GATT 1994. On 9 March 1998, the EC requested the establishment of a panel. On 25 March 1998, the DSB established a panel. Pursuant to Article 9.1 of the DSU, the DSB decided that the same Panel established to examine the dispute in DS87 above should examine this dispute. Peru, Canada and the US reserved their third-party rights. The panel found that Chile's Transitional System and its New System for taxation of distilled alcoholic beverages was inconsistent with ArticleIII:2 of GATT 1994. The report of the panel (which covers (3)(a) above) was circulated to Members on 15 June 1999. On 13 September 1999, Chile notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed by the Panel. The Appellate Body upheld the panel's interpretation and application of Article III:2 of GATT 1994, subject to exclusion of certain considerations relied upon by the panel. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members on 13 December 1999. The DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report, as modified by the Appellate Body Report, on 12 January 2000. (27) Turkey - Restrictions on Imports of Textile and Clothing Products, complaint by India (WT/DS34). This request, dated 21 March 1996, claims that Turkey's imposition of quantitative restrictions on imports of a broad range of textile and clothing products is inconsistent with ArticlesXI and XIII of GATT 1994, as well as ATC Article 2. Earlier, India had requested to be joined in the consultations between Hong Kong and Turkey on the same subject matter (WT/DS29). On 2 February 1998, India requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 13 March 1998, the DSB established a panel. Thailand, Hong Kong, China, Philippines and the United States reserved their third-party rights. The Panel found that Turkey's measures are inconsistent with Articles XI and XIII of GATT 1994, and consequently inconsistent also with Article 2.4 of the ATC. The Panel also rejected Turkey's assertion that its measures are justified by Article XXIV of GATT 1994. The report of the Panel was circulated to Members on 31 May 1999. On 26 July 1999, Turkey notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed by the Panel. The Appellate Body upheld the Panel's conclusion that Article XXIV of GATT 1994 does not allow Turkey to adopt, upon the formation of a customs union with the EC, quantitative restrictions which were found to be inconsistent with Articles XI and XIII of GATT 1994 and Article 2.4 of the ATC. However, the Appellate Body concluded that the Panel erred in its legal reasoning in interpreting Article XXIV of GATT 1994. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated on 21 October 1999. At its meeting on 19 November 1999, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body report. (26)(a) Canada - Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation of Dairy Products (WT/DS103/1), complaint by the United States. This request, dated 8 October 1997, is in respect of export subsidies allegedly granted by Canada on dairy products and the administration by Canada of the tariff-rate quota on milk. The US contends that these export subsidies by Canada distort markets for dairy products and adversely affect US sales of dairy products. The US alleges violations of Article II, X and X1 of GATT 1994, Articles 3, 4, 8, 9 and 10 of the Agreement on Agriculture, Article 3 of the Subsidies Agreement, and Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the Import Licensing Agreement. On 2 February 1998, the US requested the establishment of a panel. On 25 March 1998, the DSB established a panel. Australia and Japan reserved their third-party rights. The Panel found that the measures complained against were inconsistent with Canada's obligations under Article II:1(b) of GATT 1994, and Articles 3.3 and 8 of the Agreement on Agriculture by providing export subsidies as listed in Article 9.1(a) and 9.1(c) of the Agreement on Agriculture. The report of the Panel, which also covers DS113 below, was circulated to Members on 17 May 1999. On 15 July 1999, Canada notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed by the Panel (which appeal also includes DS113 below). The Appellate Body reversed the Panel's interpretation of Article 9.1(a) and, in consequence, reversed the Panel's finding that Canada acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 3.3 and 8 of the Agreement on Agriculture. However, the Appellate Body upheld the Panel's finding that Canada was in violation of Article 3.3 and 8 of the Agreement on Agriculture in respect of export subsidies listed in Article 9.1(c) of the Agreement on Agriculture. In addition, the Appellate Body partly reversed the Panel's finding that Canada acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article II:1(b) of GATT 1994. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated on 13 October 1999. At its meeting on 27October1999, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body report. (26)(b) Canada - Measures Affecting Dairy Products, complaint by New Zealand (WT/DS113/1). This request, dated 29 December 1997, is in respect of an alleged dairy export subsidy scheme commonly referred to as the "special milk classes" scheme. New Zealand contends that the Canadian "special milk classes" scheme is inconsistent with Article XI of GATT, and Articles 3, 8, 9 and 10 of the Agreement on Agriculture. On 12 March 1998, New Zealand requested the establishment of a panel. On 25March1998, the DSB established a panel. Australia and Japan reserved their third-party rights. Pursuant to Article 9.1 of the DSU, the DSB decided that the same panel established in respect of DS103 above, should also examine this dispute (see DS103 above). (25) India - Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and Industrial Products complaint by the United States (WT/DS90/1). This request, dated 15 July 1997, is in respect of quantitative restrictions maintained by India on importation of a large number of agricultural, textile and industrial products. The US contends that these quantitative restrictions, including the more than 2,700 agricultural and industrial product tariff lines notified to the ϲʹ, are inconsistent with India's obligations under Articles XI:1 and XVIII:11 of GATT 1994, Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture, and Article 3 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures. On 3 October 1997, the US requested the establishment of a panel. The DSB established a panel on 18 November 1997. The report of the Panel was circulated to Members on 6 April 1999. The panel found that the measures at issue were inconsistent with India's obligations under Articles XI and XVIII11 of GATT 1994, and to the extent that the measures apply to products subject to the Agreement on Agriculture, are inconsistent with Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. The panel also found the measures to be nullifying or impairing benefits accruing to the United States under GATT 1994, and the Agreement on Agriculture. On 26 May 1999, India notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed by the Panel. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members on 23 August 1999. The Appellate Body upheld all of the findings of the panel that were appealed from. The DSB adopted the Panel and Appellate Body reports at its meeting on 22 September 1999. (24) Brazil - Export Financing Programme for Aircraft, complaint by Canada (WT/DS46). On 19June 1996, Canada requested consultations with Brazil, based on Article 4 of the Subsidies Agreement, which provides for special procedures for export subsidies. Canada claims that export subsidies granted under the Brazilian Programa de Financiamento s Exportaes (PROEX), to foreign purchasers of Brazil's Embraer aircraft are inconsistent with the Subsidies Agreement Articles 3, 27.4 and 27.5. Canada requested the establishment of a panel on 16 September 1996, alleging violations of both the Subsidies Agreement and GATT 1994. The DSB considered this request at its meeting on 27September1996. Due to Brazil's objection to the establishment of a panel, Canada agreed to modify its request, limiting the scope of the request to the Subsidies Agreement. The modified request was submitted by Canada on 3 October 1996 but was subsequently withdrawn prior to a DSB meeting at which it was to be considered. On 10 July 1998, Canada again requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 23 July 1998, the DSB established a panel. The US reserved its rights as a third-party in the dispute. The Panel found that Brazil's measures were inconsistent with Articles 3.1(a) and 27.4 of the Subsidies Agreement. The report of the Panel was circulated to Members on 14 April 1999. On 3May 1999, Brazil notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed by the Panel. The Appellate Body upheld all the findings of the panel, but reversed and modified the panel's interpretation of the "material advantage" clause in item (k) of the Illustrative List of Export Subsidies in Annex I of the SCM Agreement. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members on 2August 1999. The DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report, as modified by the Appellate Body Report, on 20 August 1999. (23) Canada - Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft, complaint by Brazil (WT/DS70). This request dated 10 March 1997, is in respect of certain subsidies granted by the Government of Canada or its provinces intended to support the export of civilian aircraft. The request is made pursuant to Article 4 of the Subsidies Agreement. Brazil contends that these measures are inconsistent with Article 3 of the Subsidies Agreement. On 10 July 1998, Brazil requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 23 July 1998, the DSB established a panel. The US reserved its rights as a third-party in the dispute. The Panel found that certain of Canada's measures were inconsistent with Articles 3.1(a) and 3.2 of the Subsidies Agreement, but rejected Brazil's claim that EDC assistance to the Canadian regional aircraft industry constitutes export subsidies. The report of the panel was circulated to Members on 14 April 1999. On 3 May 1999, Canada notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed by the Panel. The Appellate Body upheld the findings of the panel. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members on 2August 1999. The DSB adopted the AppellateBody and Panel Reports on 20 August 1999. (22) Australia - Subsidies Provided to Producers and Exporters of Automotive Leather, complaint by the United States (WT/DS126/1). The request, dated 4 May 1998, is in respect of prohibited subsidies allegedly provided to Australian producers and exporters of automotive leather, including subsidies provided to Howe and Company Proprietary Ltd. (or any of its affiliated and/or parent companies), which allegedly involve preferential government loans of about A$25 million and non-commercial terms and grants of about A$30 million. The US contends that these measures violate the obligations of Australia under Article 3 of the Subsidies Agreement. On 11 June 1998, the US requested the establishment of a panel. See also WT/DS106. At its meeting on 22 June 1998, the DSB established a Panel. The Panel found that the loan from the Australian Government to Howe/ALH is not a subsidy contingent upon export performance within the meaning of Article 3.1(a) of the SCM Agreement, but that the payments under the grant contract are subsidies within the meaning of Article 1 of the SCM Agreement, which are contingent upon export performance within the meaning of Article 3.1(a) of that Agreement. The report of the Panel was circulated to Members on 25 May 1999. At its meeting on 16June1999, the DSB adopted the Panel report. (21) Japan - Measures Affecting Agricultural Products, complaint by the United States (WT/DS76/1). This request, dated 7 April 1997, is in respect of the prohibition by Japan, under quarantine measures, of imports of agricultural products. The US alleges that Japan prohibits the importation of each variety of a product requiring quarantine treatment until the quarantine treatment has been tested for that variety, even if the treatment has proved to be effective for other varieties of the same product. The US alleges violations of Articles 2, 5 and 8 of the SPS Agreement, Article XI of GATT 1994, and Article 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture. In addition, the US makes a claim for nullification and impairment of benefits. On 3 October 1997, the US requested the establishment of a panel. The DSB established a panel on 18 November 1997. The EC, Hungary and Brazil reserved their third-party rights. The Panel found that Japan acted inconsistently with Articles 2.2 and 5.6 of the SPS Agreement, and Annex B and, consequently, Article 7 of the SPS Agreement. The report of the Panel was circulated to Members on 27 October 1998. On 24 November 1998, Japan notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed by the Panel. The Appellate Body upheld the basic finding that Japan's varietal testing of apples, cherries, nectarines and walnuts is inconsistent with the requirements of the SPS Agreement. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members on 22February1999. The DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report, as modified by the Appellate Body Report, on 19 March 1999. (20) United States - Anti-Dumping Duty on Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors (DRAMS) of One Megabit or Above from Korea, complaint by Korea (WT/DS99/1). This request, dated 14 August 1997, is in respect of a decision of the US Department of Commerce (DoC) not to revoke the anti-dumping duty on dynamic random access memory semi-conductors (DRAMS) of one megabyte or above originating from Korea. Korea contends that the DoC's decision was made despite the finding that the Korean DRAM producers have not dumped their products for a period of more than three and a half consecutive years, and despite the existence of evidence demonstrating conclusively that Korean DRAM producers will not engage in dumping DRAMS in the future. Korea considers that these measures are in violation of Articles 6 and 11 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. On 6 November 1997, Korea requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 16 January 1998, the DSB established a panel. The Panel found the measures complained of to be in violation of Article 11.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. The report of the Panel was circulated on 29 January 1999. At its meeting on 19March 1999, the DSB adopted the Panel Report. (19)(a) Korea - Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS/75/1). This request, dated 4 April 1997, is in respect of internal taxes imposed by Korea on certain alcoholic beverages pursuant to its Liquor Tax Law and Education Tax Law. The EC contends that the Korean Liquor Tax Law and Education Tax Law appear to be inconsistent with Korea's obligations under Article III:2 of GATT 1994. On 10 September 1997, the EC requested the establishment of panel. At its meeting on 16 October 1997, the DSB established a panel, which would also examine the complaint by the US below. Canada and Mexico reserved their third-party rights. The Panel found that soju (both diluted and distilled), is directly competitive and substitutable with the imported distilled alcoholic beverages that were in issue, namely, whisky, brandy, rum, gin, vodka, tequila, liqueurs and ad-mixtures. The Panel also found that Korea has taxed the imported products in a dissimilar manner and that the tax differential was more than de minimis, and is applied so as to afford protection to domestic production. The Panel therefore concluded that Korea had violated Article III:2 of GATT1994. The report of the Panel (which also covers DS84 below) was circulated to Members on 17September 1998. On 20 October 1998, Korea notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed by the Panel. The Appellate Body upheld the panel's findings on all points. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members on 18 January 1999. The DSB adopted the Panel and Appellate Body Reports on 17 February 1999. (19)(b) Korea - Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, complaint by the United States (WT/DS84/1). This request, dated 23 May 1997, is in respect of the same measures complained of by the EC in DS75 above. The US also alleges violations of Article III:2. On 10 September 1997, the US requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 16 October 1997, the DSB established a panel, which would also examine the complaint by the EC above. Canada and Mexico reserved their third-party rights. See DS75 above. (18) Guatemala - Anti-Dumping Investigation Regarding Imports of Portland Cement from Mexico, complaint by Mexico (WT/DS60). This request, dated 15 October 1996 is in respect of an anti-dumping investigation commenced by Guatemala with regard to imports of portland cement from Mexico. Mexico alleges that this investigation is in violation of Guatemala's obligations under Articles 2, 3, 5 and 7.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. On 4 February 1997, Mexico requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 20 March 1997, the DSB established a panel. The US, Canada, Honduras and ElSalvador have reserved their third-party rights. The Panel found that Guatemala had failed to comply with the requirements of Article 5.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by initiating the investigation on the basis of evidence of dumping, injury and casual link that was not "sufficient" as a justification for initiation. The report of the Panel was circulated to Members on 19 June 1998. On 4 August 1998, Guatemala notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed by the Panel. The Appellate Body reversed the Panel's finding that the dispute was properly before the Panel, on the ground that Mexico did not comply with Article 6.2 of the DSU in its request for a panel since it did not identify the measure it was complaining against. Having found that the dispute was not properly before the Panel, the Appellate Body could not make any conclusions on the findings by the Panel on the substantive issues that were also the subject of the appeal. The Appellate Body stressed that its decision was without prejudice to Mexico's right to pursue fresh dispute settlement proceedings on this matter. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members on 2November 1998. At the DSB meeting on 25 November 1998, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report, as reversed by the Appellate Body Report. (17) United States - Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, complaint by India, Malaysia, Pakistan and Thailand (WT/DS58). This request, dated 8 October 1996, concerns a joint complaint by India, Malaysia, Pakistan and Thailand against a ban on importation of shrimp and shrimp products from these countries imposed by the United States under Section 609 of US Public Law 101-162. Violations of Articles I, XI and XIII of GATT 1994, as well nullification and impairment of benefits, are alleged. On 9 January 1997, Malaysia and Thailand requested the establishment of a panel. On 30 January 1997, Pakistan also requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 25February 1997, the DSB established a panel. Australia, Colombia, the EC, Philippines, Singapore, Hong Kong, India, Guatemala, Mexico, Japan, Nigeria and Sri Lanka reserved their third-party rights. On 25February 1997, India also requested the establishment of a panel in the same matter. At its meeting on 10 April 1997, the DSB agreed to establish a panel in respect of India's request but agreed to incorporate this with the panel already established in respect of the other complainants. The Panel found that the import ban in shrimp and shrimp products as applied by the United States is inconsistent with Article XI:1 of GATT 1994, and cannot be justified under Article XX of GATT 1994. The report of the Panel was circulated to Members on 15 May 1998. On 13 July 1998, the US notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed by the Panel. The Appellate Body reversed the Panel's finding that the US measure at issue is not within the scope of measures permitted under the chapeau of Article XX of GATT 1994, but concluded that the US measure, while qualifying for provisional justification under Article XX(g), fails to meet the requirements of the chapeau of ArticleXX. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members on 12 October 1998. The DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report, as modified by the Appellate Body Report, on 6 November 1998. (16) Australia - Measures Affecting the Importation of Salmon, complaint by Canada (WT/DS18). This request for consultations, dated 5 October 1995, is in respect of Australia's prohibition of imports of salmon from Canada based on a quarantine regulation. Canada alleges that the prohibition is inconsistent with GATT Articles XI and XIII, and also inconsistent with the SPS Agreement. On 7March1997, Canada requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 10 April 1997, the DSB established a panel. The US and the European Communities reserved their third-party rights. The Panel found that Australia's measures complained against were inconsistent with Articles 2.2, 2.3, 5.1, 5.5, and 5.6 of the SPS Agreement, and also nullified or impaired benefits accruing to Canada under the SPS Agreement. The report of the Panel was circulated to Members on 12 June 1998. On 22 July 1998, Australia notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed by the Panel. The Appellate Body reversed the Panel's reasoning with respect to Articles 5.1 and 2.2 of the SPS Agreement but nevertheless found that Australia had acted inconsistently with Articles 5.1 and 2.2 of the SPS Agreement; broadened the Panel's finding that Australia had acted inconsistently with Articles 5.5 and 2.3 of the SPS Agreement; reversed the Panel's finding that Australia had acted inconsistently with Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement but was unable to come to a conclusion whether or not Australia's measure was consistent with Article 5.6 due to insufficient factual findings by the Panel. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members on 20 October 1998. The DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report, as modified by the Appellate Body Report, on 6 November1998. (15) India - Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical Products, complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS79/1). This request, dated 28 April 1997, is in respect of the alleged absence in India of patent protection for pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical products, and the absence of formal systems that permit the filing of patent applications of and provide exclusive marketing rights for such products. The EC contends that this is inconsistent with India's obligations under Article 70, paragraphs 8 and 9, of the TRIPS Agreement (see similar US complaint in DS50, where the Panel and Appellate Body reports were adopted on 16 January 1998). On 9 September 1997, the EC requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 16 October 1997, the DSB established a panel. The US reserved its third-party rights. The Panel found that India has not complied with its obligations under Article 70.8(a) of the TRIPS Agreement by failing to establish a legal basis that adequately preserves novelty and priority in respect of applications for product patents for pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical inventions, and was also not in compliance with Article 70.9 of the TRIPS Agreement by failing to establish a system for the grant of exclusive marketing rights. The report of the Panel was circulated to Members on 24 August 1998. At its meeting on 2September1998, the DSB adopted the Panel Report. (14) European Communities - Measures Affecting Importation of Certain Poultry Products, complaint by Brazil (WT/DS69). This request dated 24 February 1997, is in respect of the EC regime for the importation of certain poultry products and the implementation by the EC of the Tariff Rate Quota for these products. Brazil contends that the EC measures are inconsistent with Articles X and XXVII of GATT 1994 and Articles 1 and 3 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures. Brazil also contends that the measures nullify or impair benefits accruing to it directly or indirectly under GATT 1994. On 12 June 1997, Brazil requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 30July1997, the DSB established a panel. The US and Thailand reserved their third-party rights. The panel found that Brazil had not demonstrated that the EC had failed to implement and administer the tariff rate quota for poultry in line with its obligations under the cited agreements. The report of the Panel was circulated to Members on 12 March 1998. On 29 April 1998, Brazil notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed by the Panel. The Appellate Body upheld most of the Panel's findings and conclusions, but reversed the Panel's finding that the EC had acted inconsistently with Article 5.1(b) of the Agreement on Agriculture. The Appellate Body, however, concluded that the EC had acted inconsistently with Article 5.5 of the Agreement on Agriculture. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members on 13 July 1998. At its meeting on 23July1998, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body report. (13)(a) Indonesia - Certain Measures Affecting the Automobile Industry, complaint by Japan (WT/DS55). This request, dated 4 October 1996, concerns Indonesia's National Car Programme -- basically the same measures as in WT/DS54. Japan contends that these measures are in violation of Indonesia's obligations under Articles I:1, III:2, III:4 and X:3(a) of GATT 1994, as well as Articles 2 and 5.4 of the TRIMs Agreement. On 17 April 1997, Japan requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 12 June 1997, the DSB established a panel. In accordance with Article 9.1 of the DSU, the DSB decided that a single panel will examine this dispute together with DS54 and DS64. The Panel found that Indonesia was in violation of Articles I and II:2 of GATT 1994, Article 2 of the TRIMs Agreement, Article 5(c) of the SCM Agreement, but was not in violation of Article 28.2 of the SCM Agreement. The Panel however, found that the complainants had not demonstrated that Indonesia was in violation of Articles 3 and 65.5 of the TRIPS Agreement. The report of the Panel was circulated to Members on 2 July 1998. In view of the fact that a single Panel examined the disputes in DS55, DS64, DS54, and DS59, pursuant to Article 9.1 of the DSU, a single Panel report was issued which covers this dispute, as well as those listed below. At its meeting on 23 July 1998, the DSB adopted the Panel report. (13)(b) Indonesia - Certain Measures Affecting the Automobile Industry, complaint by Japan (WT/DS64). See DS55 above. (13)(c) Indonesia - Certain Measures Affecting the Automobile Industry, complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS54). See DS55 above. (13)(d) Indonesia - Certain Measures Affecting the Automobile Industry, complaint by the United States (WT/DS59). See DS55 above. (12) European Communities - Customs Classification of Certain Computer Equipment, complaint by the United States (WT/DS62, 67, 68). These are in respect of the reclassification by the European Communities, for tariff purposes, of certain Local Area Network (LAN) adapter equipment and personal computers with multimedia capability. The United States alleges that these measures violate Article II of GATT 1994. On 11 February 1997, the US requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 25 February 1997, the DSB established a panel. Japan, the Republic of Korea, India and Singapore reserved their third-party rights. The Panel found that the EC failed to accord imports of LAN equipment from the US treatment no less favourable than that provided for in the EC Schedule of commitments, thereby acting inconsistently with Article II:1 of GATT 1994. The report of the Panel was circulated to Members on 5 February 1998. On 24 March 1998, the EC notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed by the Panel. The Appellate Body reversed the Panel's conclusion that the EC tariff treatment of LAN equipment is inconsistent with Article II:1 of GATT 1994. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members on 5 June 1998. At its meeting on 22 June 1998, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body report. The Panel and Appellate Body reports also cover 3(b) and (c) below. (11) Argentina - Certain Measures Affecting Imports of Footwear, Textiles, Apparel and Other Items, complaint by the United States (WT/DS56). This request, dated 4 October 1996, concerns the imposition of specific duties on these items in excess of the bound rate and other measures by Argentina. The United States contends that these measures violate Articles II, VII, VIII and X of GATT 1994, Article 2 of the TBT Agreement, Article 1 to 8 of the Agreement on the Implementation of ArticleVII of GATT 1994, and Article 7 of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing. On 9January1997, the United States requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 25February1997, the DSB established a panel. The EC and India reserved their third-party rights to the dispute. The Panel found that the minimum specific duties imposed by Argentina on textiles and apparel are inconsistent with the requirements of Article II of GATT, and that the statistical tax of three per cent ad valorem imposed by Argentina on imports is inconsistent with the requirements of Article VIII of GATT. The report of the Panel was circulated on 25 November 1997. On 21 January 1998, Argentina notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed by the Panel. The Appellate Body upheld, with some modification, the Panel's findings and conclusions. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members on 27 March 1998. The Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body, were adopted by the DSB on 22 April 1998. (10) Japan - Measures Affecting Consumer Photographic Film and Paper, complaint by the United States (WT/DS44). On 13 June 1996, the United States requested consultations with Japan concerning Japan's laws, regulations and requirements affecting the distribution, offering for sale and internal sale of imported consumer photographic film and paper. The US alleges that the Japanese Government treated imported film and paper less favourably through these measures, in violation of GATT ArticlesIII andX. The US also alleges that these measures nullify or impair benefits accruing to the US (a non-violation claim). The United States requested the establishment of a panel on 20 September 1996 and it was established on 16 October 1996. The Panel found; that the US did not demonstrate that the Japanese 'measures' cited by the US nullified or impaired, either individually or collectively, benefits accruing to the US within the meaning of GATT Article XXIII:1(b); that the US did not demonstrate that the Japanese distribution 'measures' cited by the US accord less favourable treatment to imported photographic film and paper within the meaning of GATT Article III:4; and that the US did not demonstrate that Japan failed to publish administrative rulings of general application in violation of GATT Article X:1. The report of the Panel was circulated to Members on 31 March 1998. The Panel report was adopted by the DSB on 22 April 1998. 9)(a) European Communities - Measures Affecting Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), complaint by the United States (WT/DS26). On 25 April 1996, the United States requested the establishment of a panel in this dispute, claiming that measures taken by the EC under the Council Directive Prohibiting the Use in Livestock Farming of Certain Substances Having a Hormonal Action restrict or prohibit imports of meat and meat products from the United States, and are apparently inconsistent with GATT Articles III or XI, SPS Agreement Articles 2, 3 and 5, TBT Agreement Article 2 and the Agreement on Agriculture Article 4. A panel was established at the DSB meeting on 20 May 1996. The Panel found that the EC ban on imports of meat and meat products from cattle treated with any of six specific hormones for growth promotion purposes was inconsistent with Articles 3.1, 5.1 and 5.5 of the SPS Agreement. The report of the Panel was circulated to Members on 18 August 1997. On 24 September 1997, the EC notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed by the Panel. The Appellate Body upheld the Panel's finding that the EC import prohibition was inconsistent with Articles 3.3 and 5.1 of the SPS Agreement, but reversed the Panel's finding that the EC import prohibition was inconsistent with Articles 3.1 and 5.5 of the SPS Agreement. On the general and procedural issues, the Appellate Body upheld most of the findings and conclusions of the Panel, except with respect to the burden of proof in proceedings under the SPS Agreement. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members on 16 January 1998. The Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body, were adopted by the DSB on 13 February 1998. On 16April1997, the respondent requested that the "reasonable period of time" for implementation of the recommendations and rulings of the DSB be determined by binding arbitration, pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU. The Arbitrator found the reasonable period of time for implementation to be 15 months from the date of adoption (i.e. 15 months from 13 February 1998). The report of the Arbitrator was circulated to Members on 29 May 1998. (9)(b) European Communities - Measures Affecting Livestock and Meat (Hormones), complaint by Canada (WT/DS48). On 28 June 1996, Canada requested consultations with the European Communities regarding the importation of livestock and meat from livestock that have been treated with certain substances having a hormonal action under GATT Article XXII and the corresponding provisions in the SPS, TBT and Agriculture Agreements. Violations SPS Articles 2, 3 and 5; GATT Article III or XI; TBT Article 2; and Agriculture Article 4 are alleged. The Canadian claim is essentially the same as the US claim (WT/DS26), for which a panel was established earlier. See above. The DSB established a panel on 16October 1996. The Panel found that the EC ban on imports of meat and meat products from cattle treated with any of six specific hormones for growth promotion purposes was inconsistent with Articles 3.1, 5.1 and 5.5 of the SPS Agreement. The report of the Panel was circulated to Members on 18 August 1997. On 24 September 1997, the EC notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed by the Panel. The Appellate Body upheld the Panel's finding that the EC import prohibition was inconsistent with Articles 3.3 and 5.1 of the SPS Agreement, but reversed the Panel's finding that the EC import prohibition was inconsistent with Articles 3.1 and 5.5 of the SPS Agreement. On the general and procedural issues, the Appellate Body upheld most of the findings and conclusions of the Panel, except with respect to the burden of proof in proceedings under the SPS Agreement. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members on 16 January 1998. The Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body, were adopted by the DSB on 13 February 1998. On 16 April 1998, the respondent requested that the "reasonable period of time" for implementation of the recommendations and rulings of the DSB be determined by binding arbitration, pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU. The Arbitrator found the reasonable period of time for implementation to be 15 months from the date of adoption (i.e. 15 months from 13 February 1998). The report of the Arbitrator was circulated to Members on 29May1998. (8) India - Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical Products, complaint by the United States (WT/DS50). This request, dated 2 July 1996, concerns the alleged absence of patent protection for pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical products in India. Violations of the TRIPS Agreement Articles 27, 65 and 70 are claimed. The United States requested the establishment of a panel on 7 November 1996. The DSB established a panel at its meeting on 20 November 1996. The Panel found that India has not complied with its obligations under Article 70.8(a) or Article 63(1) and (2) of the TRIPS Agreement by failing to establish a mechanism that adequately preserves novelty and priority in respect of applications for product patents for pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical inventions, and was also not in compliance with Article 70.9 of the TRIPS Agreement by failing to establish a system for the grant of exclusive marketing rights. The report of the Panel was circulated on 5September1997. On 15 October 1997, India notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed by the Panel. The Appellate Body upheld, with modifications, the Panel's findings on Articles 70.8 and 70.9, but ruled that Article 63(1) was not within the Panel's terms of reference. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members on 19 December 1997. The Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body, were adopted by the DSB on 16 January 1998. At the DSB meeting of 22 April 1998, the parties announced that they had agreed on an implementation period of 15 months. (7) European Communities - Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, complaints by Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico and the United States (WT/DS27). The complainants in this case other than Ecuador had requested consultations with the EC on the same issue on 28 September 1995 (WT/DS16). After Ecuador's accession to the ϲʹ, the current complainants again requested consultations with the EC on 5 February 1996. The complainants allege that the EC's regime for importation, sale and distribution of bananas is inconsistent with GATT Articles I, II, III, X, XI and XIII as well as provisions of the Import Licensing Agreement, the Agreement on Agriculture, the TRIMs Agreement and the GATS. A panel was established at the DSB meeting on 8 May 1996. The Panel found that the EC's banana import regime, and the licensing procedures for the importation of bananas in this regime, are inconsistent with the GATT. The Panel further found that the Lom waiver waives the inconsistency with GATT Article XIII, but not inconsistencies arising from the licensing system. The report of the Panel was circulated to Members on 22 May 1997. On 11 June 1997, the European Communities notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed by the Panel. The Appellate Body mostly upheld the Panel's findings, but reversed the Panel's findings that the inconsistency with GATT Article XIII is waived by the Lom waiver, and that certain aspects of the licensing regime violated Article X of GATT and the Import Licensing Agreement. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members on 9 September 1997. At its meeting on 25 September 1997, the Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body, were adopted by the DSB. On 17 November 1997, the complainants requested that the "reasonable period of time" for implementation of the recommendations and rulings of the DSB be determined by binding arbitration, pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU. The Arbitrator found the reasonable period of time for implementation to be the period from 25 September 1997 to 1January1999. The report of the Arbitrator was circulated to Members on 7 January 1998. (6) Canada - Certain Measures Concerning Periodicals, complaint by the United States (WT/DS31). In its request for consultations dated 11 March 1996, the United States claims that measures prohibiting or restricting the importation into Canada of certain periodicals are in contravention of GATT ArticleXI. The US further alleges that the tax treatment of so-called "split-run" periodicals and the application of favourable postage rates to certain Canadian periodicals are inconsistent with GATT Article III. The DSB established a panel on 19 June 1996. The Panel found the measures applied by Canada to be in violation of GATT rules. The report of the Panel was circulated to Members on 14 March 1997. On 29April1997, Canada notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed by the Panel. The Appellate Body upheld the Panel's findings and conclusions on the applicability of GATT 1994 to Part V.1 of Canada's Excise Tax Act, but reversed the Panel's finding that Part V.1 of the Excise Act is inconsistent with the first sentence of Article III:2 of GATT 1994. The Appellate Body further concluded that Part V.1 of the Excise Act is inconsistent with the second sentence of Article III:2 of GATT 1994. The Appellate Body also reversed the Panel's conclusion that Canada's "funded" postal rate scheme is justified by Article III:8(b) of GATT 1994. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members on 30 June 1997. At its meeting on 30July1997, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body. (5) United States - Measure Affecting Imports of Woven Wool Shirts and Blouses, complaint by India (WT/DS33). This case concerns the transitional safeguard measure imposed by the United States. India claimed that the safeguard measure is inconsistent with Articles 2, 6 and 8 of the ATC. A panel was established at the DSB meeting on 17April1996. The Panel found that the safeguard measure imposed by the United States violated the provisions of the ATC. The report of the Panel was circulated to Members on 6 January 1997. On 24 February 1997, India notified its intention to appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed by the Panel. The Appellate Body upheld the Panel's decisions on those issues of law and legal interpretations that were appealed against. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members on 25 April 1997. The Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as upheld by the Appellate Body, were adopted by the DSB on 23 May 1997. (4) Brazil - Measures Affecting Desiccated Coconut, complaint by the Philippines (WT/DS22). The Philippines claims that the countervailing duty imposed by Brazil on the Philippine's exports of desiccated coconut is inconsistent with ϲʹ and GATT rules. The report of the Panel concluded that the provisions of the agreements relied on by the claimant were inapplicable to the dispute (WT/DS22/R). The report was circulated to members on 17 October 1996. On 16 December 1996, the Philippines notified its decision to appeal against certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed by the panel. The Appellate Body upheld the findings and legal interpretations of the Panel. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members on 21 February 1997. The Appellate Body's report and the Panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body's report, were adopted by the DSB on 20 March 1997. (3) United States - Restrictions on Imports of Cotton and Man-Made Fibre Underwear, complaint by Costa Rica (WT/DS24). This dispute involves US restrictions on textile imports from Costa Rica, allegedly in violation of the ATC agreement. The Panel found that the US restraints were not valid. The report of the panel was circulated to members on 8 November 1996. On 11 November 1996, CostaRica notified its decision to appeal against one aspect of the Panel report. The Appellate Body upheld the appeal by Costa Rica on that particular point. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members on 10 February 1997. The Appellate Body's report and the Panel report as modified by the Appellate report, were adopted by the DSB on 25 February 1997. At the meeting of the DSB on 10 April 1997, the US informed the meeting that the measure which had been the subject of this dispute had expired on 27 March 1997 and had not been renewed, effectively meaning that the US had immediately complied with the recommendations of the DSB. (2) Japan - Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages, complaints by the European Communities (WT/DS8), Canada (WT/DS10) and the United States (WT/DS11). Complainants claimed that spirits exported to Japan were discriminated against under the Japanese liquor tax system which, in their view, levies a substantially lower tax on "shochu" than on whisky, cognac and white spirits. A joint panel was established at the DSB meeting on 27 September 1995. The report of the panel, which found the Japanese tax system to be inconsistent with GATT Article III:2, was circulated to Members on 11July1996. On 8 August 1996 Japan filed an appeal. The report of the Appellate Body was circulated to Members on 4 October 1996. The Appellate Body's Report affirmed the Panel's conclusion that the Japanese Liquor Tax Law is inconsistent with GATT Article III:2, but pointed out several areas where the Panel had erred in its legal reasoning. The Appellate Report, together with the panel report as modified by the Appellate Report, was adopted on 1 November 1996. On 24 December 1996, the US, pursuant to Article 21(3)(c) of the DSU applied for binding arbitration to determine the reasonable period of time for implementation by Japan of the recommendations of the Appellate Body. The Arbitrator found the reasonable period for implementation of the recommendations to be 15 months. The Arbitrator's report was circulated to members on 14 February 1997. (1) United States - Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline, complaints by Venezuela (WT/DS2) and Brazil (WT/DS4). A single panel considered the complaints of both Venezuela and Brazil. Complainants alleged that a U.S. gasoline regulation discriminated against complainants' gasoline in violation of GATT Articles I and III and Article 2 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT). The report of the panel found the regulation to be inconsistent with GATT Article III:4 and not to benefit from an Article XX exception, (WT/DS2/R, 29 January 1996). The United States appealed on 21 February 1996. On 22 April, the Appellate Body issued its report (WT/DS2/AB/R), modifying the panel report on the interpretation of GATT Article XX(g), but concluding that the Article XX(g) was not applicable in this case. The Appellate Report, together with the panel report as modified by the Appellate Report, was adopted by the DSB on 20 May 1996. Settled or Inactive Cases (39) Brazil Measures Affecting Patent Protection, complaint by the United States (WT/DS199/1). This request, dated 30 May 2000, is in respect of those provisions of Brazil's 1996 industrial property law (Law No. 9,279 of 14 May 1996; effective May 1997) and other related measures, which establish a "local working" requirement for the enjoyability of exclusive patent rights. The United States asserts that the "local working" requirement can only be satisfied by the local production and not the importation of the patented subject-matter. More specifically, the United States notes that Brazil's "local working" requirement stipulates that a patent shall be subject to compulsory licensing if the subject-matter of the patent is not "worked" in the territory of Brazil. The United States further notes that Brazil explicitly defines "failure to be worked" as "failure to manufacture or incomplete manufacture of the product" or "failure to make full use of the patented process". The United States considers that such a requirement is inconsistent with Brazil's obligations under Articles 27 and 28 of the TRIPS Agreement, and Article III of the GATT 1994. On 8 January 2001, the US requested that a panel be established. At its meeting of 1 February 2001, the DSB established a panel. Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Honduras, India and Japan reserved their third party rights. On 5 July 2001, the parties to the dispute notified to the DSB a mutually satisfactory solution on the matter. (38) Denmark - Measures Affecting the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, complaint by the United States (WT/DS83/1). This request, dated 14 May 1997, is in respect of Denmark's alleged failure to make provisional measures available in the context of civil proceedings involving intellectual property rights. The US contends that this failure violates Denmark's obligations under Articles 50, 63 and 65 of the TRIPS Agreement. On 7 June 2001, the parties to the dispute notified to the DSB a mutually satisfactory solution on the matter. (37)(a) European Communities - Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights for Motion Pictures and Television Programs, complaint by the United States (WT/DS124/1). This request, dated 30 April 1998, is in respect of the lack of enforcement of intellectual property rights in Greece. The US claims that a significant number of TV stations in Greece regularly broadcast copyrighted motion pictures and television programs without the authorization of copyright owners. The US contends that effective remedies against copyright infringement do not appear to be provided or enforced in Greece in respect of these broadcasts. The US alleges a violation of Articles 41 and 61 of the TRIPS Agreement. On 20 March 2001, the parties to the dispute notified a mutually satisfactory solution on the matter to the DSB. (37)(b) Greece - Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights for Motion Pictures and Television Programs, complaint by the United States (WT/DS125/1). This request, dated 30 April 1998, is in respect of the same measures raised against the EC above (DS124). On 20 March 2001, the parties to the dispute notified a mutually satisfactory solution on the matter to the DSB. (36) Australia - Measures Affecting the Importation of Salmonids, complaint by the United States (WT/DS21). This request for consultations, dated 17 November 1995, concerns the same regulation alleged to be in violation of the ϲʹ Agreements in WT/DS18, in respect of which the reports of the panel and Appellate Body have already been adopted and are awaiting implementation. On 11May1999, the United States requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 16 June 1999, the DSB established a panel. Canada, the EC, Hong Kong/China, India and Norway reserved their third party rights. At the request of the complainants, the Panel agreed on 8 November 1999 to suspend its work, pursuant to Article 12.12 of the DSU, until such time as the panelists have completed their work in the ongoing proceeding requested by Canada pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU (WT/DS18) or for eleven months, whichever is the earlier. On 29 March 2000, the panel agreed to a request by the US, pursuant to Article 12.12 of the DSU, to suspend its work for a period of one month, i.e. until 29 April 2000. On 12 May 2000, the panel agreed to a request by the US to suspend its work for an additional period of time, which will expire on 17 July 2000. On 27 October 2000, the parties to the dispute notified a mutually satisfactory solution on the matter to the DSB. (35) United States - Anti-Dumping Duty on Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors (DRAMS) of One Megabit or Above from Korea, complaint by Korea (WT/DS99/1). This request, dated 14 August 1997, is in respect of a decision of the US Department of Commerce (DoC) not to revoke the anti-dumping duty on dynamic random access memory semi-conductors (DRAMS) of one megabyte or above originating from Korea. Korea contends that the DoC's decision was made despite the finding that the Korean DRAM producers have not dumped their products for a period of more than three and a half consecutive years, and despite the existence of evidence demonstrating conclusively that Korean DRAM producers will not engage in dumping DRAMS in the future. Korea considers that these measures are in violation of Articles 6 and 11 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. On 6 November 1997, Korea requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 16 January 1998, the DSB established a panel. The Panel found the measures complained of to be in violation of Article 11.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. The report of the Panel was circulated on 29 January 1999. Korea requested that this matter be referred to the original panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. Following adoption of the panel report by the DSB, Korea submitted a request to the effect that the matter be referred to the original panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. At its meeting on 25 April 2000, the DSB agreed to reconvene the original panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. The EC reserved its reserved its third-party rights. 19 September 2000, Korea has requested the Panel to suspend its work, including the issuance of the interim report, "until further notification" pursuant to Article 12.12 of the DSU. The Panel, in a letter sent to the parties on 21 September 2000, has agreed to this request. At its meeting on 19March 1999, the DSB adopted the Panel Report. On 20 October 2000, the parties notified the DSB of a mutually satisfactory solution to the matter, involving the revocation of the antidumping order at issue as the result of a five-year "sunset" review by the US Department of Commerce. (34) United States - Measures Affecting Textiles and Apparel Products, complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS151/1). This dispute, dated 19 November 1998, is in respect of alleged changes to US rules of origin for textiles and apparel products. The EC discloses that this issue was the subject of an earlier request for consultations (DS85), in respect of which a mutually agreed solution was notified to the DSB, pursuant to Article 3.1 of the DSU. However, the EC contends that the US has not implemented its commitments as contained in that agreement with the result that, in the EC view, the US is still acting in a manner inconsistent with its obligations under the ϲʹ. The dispute concerns changes allegedly introduced by the US to its rules of origin for textiles and apparel products, which entered into force on 1 July 1996, which changes adversely affect exports of EC textile products to the US, in that as a result of these changes EC products are allegedly no longer recognised in the US as being of EC origin. The EC alleges violations of Articles 2.4, 4.2 and 4.4 of the ATC, Article 2 of the Agreement on Rules of Origin, Article III of GATT 1994, and Article2 of the TBT Agreement. In a communication dated 21 July 2000, the parties notified a mutually agreed solution to this dispute. (33) Argentina Transitional Safeguard Measures on Certain Imports of Woven Fabrics of Cotton and Cotton Mixtures Originating in Brazil, complaint by Brazil (WT/DS190/1). This request for a panel, dated 11 February 2000, concerns transitional safeguard measures applied by Argentina, as of 31 July 1999, against certain imports of woven fabrics of cotton and cotton mixtures originating in Brazil. The measures at issue were applied through Resolution MEyOSP 861/99 of the Ministry of the Economy and Public Works and Services of Argentina. In accordance with Article 6.11 of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing, Brazil had referred the matter to the Textiles Monitoring Body (TMB) for review and recommendations, after consultations requested earlier by Argentina had failed to produce a mutually satisfactory solution. At its meeting of 18-22 October 1999, the TMB conducted a review of the measures implemented by Argentina, having recommended that Argentina rescind the safeguard measures applied against imports from Brazil. On 29 November 1999, in accordance with Article 8.10 of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing, Argentina notified the TMB that it considered itself unable to conform with the recommendations issued by the TMB. At its meeting of 13-14 December 1999, the TMB conducted a review of the reasons given by Argentina and recommended that Argentina reconsider its position. The TMB's recommendations notwithstanding, the matter remained unresolved. Brazil is of the view that the transitional safeguards applied by Argentina are inconsistent with Argentina's obligations under Articles 2.4, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, 6.7, 6.8, 6.11, 8.9 and 8.10 of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing and should, therefore, be rescinded forthwith. At its meeting on 20 March 2000, the DSB established a panel. The EC, Pakistan, Paraguay and the US reserved their third-party rights. In a communication dated June 2000, the parties notified a mutually agreed solution to this dispute. Pursuant to the agreement reached, Brazil retains the right to resume the procedures for the composition of the panel from the point where they stood at the time the agreement was reached. (32)(a) United States - Measure Affecting Government Procurement, complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS88/1). This request, dated 20 June 1997, is in respect of an Act enacted by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on 25 June 1996, entitled Act regulating State Contracts with companies doing Business with Burma (Myanmar). The Act provides, in essence, that public authorities of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts are not allowed to procure goods or services from any persons who do business with Burma. The EC contends that, as Massachusetts is covered under the US schedule to the GPA, this violates Articles VIII(B), X and XIII of the GPA Agreement. The EC also contends that the measure also nullifies benefits accruing to it under the GPA, as well as impeding the attainment of the objectives of the GPA, including that of maintaining balance of rights and obligations. On 8September 1998, the EC requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 21October1998, the DSB established a panel. Japan reserved its third-party right. The DSB agreed that pursuant to Article 9.1 of the DSU, a single panel would examine this dispute together with DS95 below. At the request of the complainants, dated 10 February 1999, the Panel agreed, pursuant to Article12.12 of the DSU, to suspend the panel proceedings (which also applies to DS95 below). Since the panel was not requested to resume its work, pursuant to Article 12.12 of the DSU, the authority for establishment of the panel lapsed as of 11 February 2000 (which also applies to DS95 below). (32)(b) United States - Measure Affecting Government Procurement, complaint by Japan (WT/DS95/1). This request, dated 18 July 1997, is in respect of the same issued raised by the EC in DS88 above. On 8 September 1998, Japan requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 21October 1998, the DSB established a panel. The DSB agreed that pursuant to Article 9.1 of the DSU, a single panel would examine this dispute together with DS88 above. (31) European Communities - Measures Affecting Butter Products, complaint by New Zealand (WT/DS72). This request, dated 24 March 1997, is in respect of decisions by the EC and the UnitedKingdom's Customs and Excise Department, to the effect that New Zealand butter manufactured by the ANMIX butter-making process and the spreadable butter-making process be classified so as to be excluded from eligibility for New Zealand's country-specific tariff quota established by the European Communities' ϲʹ Schedule. New Zealand alleges violations of Articles II, X and XI of GATT, Article 2 of the TBT Agreement, and Article 3 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures. On 6November 1997, New Zealand requested the establishment of a panel. The DSB established a panel on 18 November 1997. The US reserved its third-party rights. At the request of the complainants, dated 24February 1999, the Panel agreed, pursuant to Article 12.12 of the DSU, to suspend the panel proceedings. In a communication dated 11 November 1999, the parties notified a mutually agreed solution to this dispute. (30) Colombia Safeguard Measure on Imports of Plain Polyester Filaments from Thailand, complaint by Thailand (DS 181/1). This request for a panel, dated 7 September 1999 concerns a unilateral restraint allegedly imposed by Colombia against imports of plain polyester filaments from Thailand. Colombia's safeguard measure is alleged to be inconsistent with Article 2 of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC) regarding the application of a transitional safeguard mechanism and with Article 2 of the ATC regarding the introduction and application of restrictions by Members. The safeguard measures imposed by Colombia on 26 October 1998 have been subject to the two-stage examination and review procedures by the Textiles Monitoring Body (TMB). The TMB recommended at its fiftieth meeting held on 16-19 November 1998 that Colombia rescind the measure. On 22 December 1998, Colombia notified the TMB of its inability to conform with this TMB recommendation and provided the TMB with reasons therefor. At its fifty-second meeting on 18-20 January 1999, the TMB reviewed the matter and repeated its recommendation to Colombia to rescind the safeguard measure forthwith. At the DSB meeting on 27 October 1999, Thailand announced that it was withdrawing its request for a panel because the Colombian safeguard measure had been terminated. (29) Argentina - Measures Affecting Textiles and Clothing, complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS77/1). This request dated 17 April 1997, is in respect of a range of specific duties on textiles and clothing which have allegedly resulted in increased duties and have led to applied tariffs that exceed the 35% binding made by Argentina. The EC contends that these measures are a violation of Argentina's commitments under Article II of GATT 1994, and also of Article 7 of the ATC. See similar US complaint in DS56 pending before a panel. On 10 September 1997, the EC requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 16 October 1997, the DSB established a panel. The US reserved its third-party rights. The Panel suspended its work at the request of the EC on 29 July 1998. Pursuant to DSU Article 12.12, the panel's authority lapsed on 29 July 1999, 12 months having passed since the suspension of the panel's work. (28) Sweden - Measures Affecting the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights, complaint by the United States (WT/DS86/1). This request, dated 28 May 1997, is in respect of Sweden's alleged failure to make provisional measures available in the context of civil proceedings involving intellectual property rights. The US contends that this failure violates Sweden's obligations under Articles 50, 63 and 65 of the TRIPS Agreement. In a communication dated 2 December 1998, the two parties notified a mutually agreed solution to this dispute. (27) United States - Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Colour Television Receivers from Korea, complaint by Korea (WT/DS89/1). This request, dated 10 July 1997, is in respect of the imposition of anti-dumping duties by the US on imports of colour television receivers (CTVs) from Korea. Korea contends that the US has for the past twelve years maintained an anti-dumping order for Samsung's CTVs despite the absence of dumping and the cessation of exports from Korea, without examining the necessity of continuing to impose such duties. Korea contends that the US actions violate Articles VI.1 and VI.6(a) of GATT 1994, and Articles 1, 2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.6, 4.1, 5.4, 5.8, 5.10, 11.1 and 11.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. On 6 November 1997, Korea requested the establishment of a panel. On 5January 1998, Korea informed the DSB that it was withdrawing its request for a panel but reserving its right to reintroduce the request. At the DSB meeting on 22 September 1998, Korea announced that it was definitively withdrawing the request for a panel because the imposition of anti-dumping duties had now been revoked. (26) Australia - Subsidies Provided to Producers and Exporters of Automotive Leather (WT/DS106/1), complaint by the United States. This request, dated 10 November 1997, is in respect of Australia's alleged prohibited subsidies provided to its producers and exporters of automotive leather. The US contends that these measures by Australia violate Article 3 of the Subsidies Agreement. On 9January 1998, the United States requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 22January1998, the DSB established a panel in accordance with the accelerated procedure under the Subsidies Agreement. On 11 June 1998, the US withdrew its request for a panel. See also WT/DS126. (25) Australia - Anti-dumping Measures on Imports of Coated Woodfree Paper Sheets, complaint by Switzerland (WT/DS119/1). This request, dated 20 February 1998, is in respect of the provisional anti-dumping measures applied on the imports of coated woodfree paper sheets from Switzerland. Switzerland contends that the investigation is not in conformity with Australia's commitments under Articles 3 and 5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. On 13 May 1998, the two parties notified a mutually agreed solution. (24) United States - The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act, complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS38). On 3 May 1996 the European Communities requested consultations with the United States concerning the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996 and other legislation enacted by the US Congress regarding trade sanctions against Cuba. The EC claims that US trade restrictions on goods of Cuban origin, as well as the possible refusal of visas and the exclusion of non-US nationals from US territory, are inconsistent with the US obligations under the ϲʹ Agreement. Violations of GATT Articles I, III, V, XI and XIII, and GATS Articles I, III, VI, XVI and XVII are alleged. The EC also alleges that even if these measures by the US may not be in violation of specific provisions of GATT or GATS, they nevertheless nullify or impair its expected benefits under GATT 1994 and GATS and impede the attainment of the objectives of GATT 1994. The European Communities requested the establishment of a panel on 3 October 1996. The DSB established a panel at its meeting on 20 November 1996. At the request of the EC, dated 21 April 1997, the Panel suspended its work. The Panel's authority lapsed on 22 April 1998, pursuant to Article12.12 of the DSU. (23)(a) India - Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and Industrial Products complaint by Australia (WT/DS91/1). This request, dated 16 July 1997, raises the same issues in respect of India's quantitative restrictions on imports of agricultural, textile and industrial products as in the request by the US in DS90. On 23 March 1998, the two parties notified a mutually agreed solution. (23)(b) India - Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and Industrial Products, complaint by Canada (WT/DS92/1). This request, dated 16 July 1997, raises the same issues in respect of India's quantitative restrictions on imports of agricultural, textile and industrial products as in the requests by the US (DS90) and Australia (DS91). On 25 March 1998, the two parties notified a mutually agreed solution. (23)(c) India - Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and Industrial Products, complaint by Switzerland (WT/DS94/1). This request, dated 18 July 1997, raises the same issues in respect of India's quantitative restrictions on imports of agricultural, textile and industrial products as in the requests by the US (DS90), Australia (DS91), Canada (DS92), and New Zealand (DS93). However, Switzerland does not invoke the Agreement on Agriculture. On 23 February 1998, the two parties notified a mutually agreed solution. (23)(d) India - Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and Industrial Products, complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS96/1). This request, dated 18 July 1997, raises the same issues in respect of India's quantitative restrictions on imports of agricultural, textile and industrial products as in the requests by the US (DS90), Australia (DS91), Canada (DS92), New Zealand (DS93), and Switzerland (DS94). In addition, the EC is also alleging violations of Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the SPS Agreement. On 7 April 1998, the two parties notified a mutually agreed solution. (23)(e) India - Quantitative Restrictions on Imports of Agricultural, Textile and Industrial Products, complaint by New Zealand (WT/DS93/1). This request, dated 16 July 1997, raises the same issues in respect of India's quantitative restrictions on imports of agricultural, textile and industrial products as in the requests by the US (DS90), Australia (DS91) and Canada (DS92). However, New Zealand makes an additional claim for nullification and impairment of benefits accruing to it under GATT 1994. In a letter dated 14 September 1998, but communicated to the Secretariat on 1December 1998, the two parties notified a mutually agreed solution to this dispute. (22)(a) Philippines - Measures Affecting Pork and Poultry, complaint by the United States (WT/DS74/1). This request, dated 1 April 1997, is in respect of the implementation by the Philippines of its tariff-rate quotas for pork and poultry. The US contends that the Philippines' implementation of these tariff-rate quotas, in particular the delays in permitting access to the in-quota quantities and the licensing system used to administer access to the in-quota quantities, appears to be inconsistent with the obligations of the Philippines under Articles III, X, and XI of GATT 1994, Article 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture, Articles 1 and 3 of the Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures, and Articles 2 and 5 of TRIMs. The US further contends that theses measures appear to nullify or impair benefits accruing to it directly or indirectly under cited agreements. On 12 March 1998, the parties communicated a mutually agreed solution to their dispute. (22)(b) Philippines - Measures Affecting Pork and Poultry (WT/DS102/1), complaint by the United States. This request, dated 7 October 1997, is in respect of the same measures complained of by the US in DS74, but also includes Administrative Order No. 8, Series of 1997, which purports to amend the original measure complained of in DS74. On 12 March 1998, the parties communicated a mutually agreed solution to their dispute. (21) United States - Measures Affecting Textiles and Apparel Products, complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS85/1). This request, dated 23 May 1997, is in respect of changes to US rules of origin for textiles and apparel products. The EC alleges that the US has introduced changes to its rules of origin for textile and apparel products, which affect exports of EC fabrics, scarves and other flat textile products to the US. As a result, the EC alleges that EC products are no longer recognised in the US as being of EC origin and lose the free access to the US market that they had hitherto enjoyed. The EC contends that these changes in US rules of origin are in violation of the obligations of the US under Articles 2.4, 4.2 and 4.4 of the ATC, Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Rules of Origin, Article III of GATT 1994, and Article 2 of the TBT Agreement. On 11 February 1998, the two parties notified their mutually agreed solution. (20) Korea - Laws, Regulations and Practices in the Telecommunications Sector, complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS40). This request for consultations, dated 9 May 1996, concerns the laws, regulations and practices in the telecommunications sector. The EC claims that the procurement practices of the Korean telecommunications sector (Korea Telecom and Dacom) discriminate against foreign suppliers. The EC also claims that the Korean government has favoured US suppliers under two bilateral telecommunications agreements between Korea and the US. Violations of GATT Articles I, III and XVII are alleged. On 22 October 1997, the parties notified the Secretariat of a mutually agreed solution. (19) Japan - Procurement of a Navigation Satellite, complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS73/1). This request, dated 26 March 1997, is in respect of a procurement tender published by the Ministry of Transport (MoT) of Japan to purchase a multi-functional satellite for Air Traffic Management. The EC contends that the specifications in the tender were not neutral but referred explicitly to US specifications. This meant, the EC contends, that European bidders could effectively not participate in the tender. The EC alleges inconsistency of this tender with Annex I of Appendix I of Japan's commitments under the Government Procurement Agreement (GPA). The EC also alleges violations of Articles VI(3) and XII(2) of the GPA. On 31 July 1997, the EC notified the Secretariat that a mutually agreed solution had been reached with Japan in this dispute. On 19 February 1998, the two parties communicated the text of their agreement to the DSB. (18) Hungary - Export Subsidies in Respect of Agricultural Products, complaint by Argentina, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Thailand and the United States (WT/DS35). This request, dated 27March1996, claims that Hungary violated the Agreement on Agriculture (Article 3.3 and Part V) by providing export subsidies in respect of agricultural products not specified in its Schedule, as well as by providing agricultural export subsidies in excess of its commitment levels. On 9 January 1997, Argentina, Australia, New Zealand and the United States requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 25 February 1997 the DSB established a panel. Canada, Japan, Thailand and Uruguay reserved their third-party rights to the dispute. At the DSB meeting on 30 July 1997, Australia, on behalf of all the complainants, notified the DSB that the parties to the dispute had reached a mutually agreed solution, which required Hungary to seek a waiver of certain of its ϲʹ obligations. Pending adoption of the waiver, the complaint was not formally withdrawn. (17) Turkey - Taxation of Foreign Film Revenues, complaint by the United States (WT/DS43). This request for consultations, dated 12 June 1996, concerns Turkey's taxation of revenues generated from the showing of foreign films. Violation of GATT Article III is alleged. On 9 January 1997, the United States requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 25 February 1997, the DSB established a panel. Canada reserved its third-party rights to the dispute. On 14 July 1997, both parties notified the DSB of a mutually agreed solution. (16) Pakistan - Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical Products, complaint by the United States (WT/DS36). In its request for consultations dated 30 April 1996, the United States claimed that the absence in Pakistan of (i) either patent protection for pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical products or a system to permit the filing of applications for patents on these products and (ii) a system to grant exclusive marketing rights in such products, violates TRIPS Agreement Articles 27, 65 and 70. On 4 July 1996, the United States requested the establishment of a panel. The DSB considered the request at its meeting on 16 July 1996, but did not establish a panel due to Pakistan's objection. At the DSB meeting on 25 February 1997, both parties informed the DSB that they had reached a mutually agreed solution to the dispute and that the terms of the agreement were being drawn up, and would be communicated to the DSB once finalized. On 28 February 1997, the terms of the agreement were communicated to the Secretariat. (15)(a) Japan - Measures Concerning Sound Recordings, complaint by the United States (WT/DS28). This request, dated 9 February 1996, is the first ϲʹ dispute settlement case involving the TRIPS Agreement. The United States claims that Japan's copyright regime for the protection of intellectual property in sound recordings is inconsistent with, inter alia, the TRIPS Agreement Article 14 (protection of performers, producers of phonograms and broadcasting organizations). On January 24 1997, both parties informed the DSB that they had reached a mutually satisfactory solution to the dispute. (15)(b) Japan - Measures Concerning Sound Recordings, complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS42). This request for consultations, dated 24 May 1996, concerns the intellectual property protection of sound recordings under GATT Article XXII:1. Violations of Articles 14.6 and 70.2 of the TRIPS Agreement are alleged. Earlier, the United States requested consultations with Japan on the same issue (WT/DS28), in which the EC joined. On 7 November 1997, both parties notified a mutually agreed solution. (14) Australia - Textiles, Clothing and Footwear Import Credit Scheme, complaint by the United States (WT/DS57). This request, dated 7 October 1996, concerns a complaint by the United States against subsidies being granted and maintained by Australia on leather products under the TCF scheme. A violation of Article 3 of the SCM Agreement is alleged. The US is also invoking Article 30 of the SCM Agreement to the extent that it incorporates by reference Article XXIII:1 of GATT 1994. An official release from the USTR in Washington on 25 November 1996 indicates that the case has been settled. (13) United States - Anti-Dumping Investigation Regarding Imports of Fresh or Chilled Tomatoes from Mexico, complaint by Mexico (WT/DS49). On 1 July 1996, Mexico requested consultations with the United States regarding the anti-dumping investigation on fresh and chilled tomatoes imported from Mexico under Article 17.3 of the Anti-dumping Agreement. Violations of GATT Articles VI and X as well as Articles 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7.1 of the Anti-dumping Agreement are alleged. Mexico claims this to be a case of urgency, where the expedited procedures under Articles 4.8 and 4.9 of the DSU are applicable. US Commerce Department official releases indicate that the case has been settled. (12) Portugal - Patent Protection under the Industrial Property Act, complaint by the United States (WT/DS37). This request for consultations dated 30 April 1996, concerned Portugal's term of patent protection under its Industrial Property Act. The US claimed that the provisions in that Act with respect to existing patents were inconsistent with Portugal's obligations under the TRIPS Agreement. Violations under Articles 33, 65 and 70 were alleged. On 3 October 1996, both parties notified a mutually agreed solution to the DSB. (11) Poland - Import Regime for Automobiles, complaint by India (WT/DS19). This request for consultations, dated 28 September 1995, concerns Poland's preferential treatment of the EC in its tariff scheme on automobiles. On 16 July 1996, both parties notified a mutually agreed solution to the DSB. (10) United States - Tariff Increases on Products from the European Communities, complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS39). In its request for consultations, dated 17 April 1996, the EC claimed that the measures taken under the Presidential Proclamation No. 5759 of 24 December 1987 (retaliation against the "hormones" directive), which resulted in tariff increases on products from the European Communities, are inconsistent with GATT Articles I, II and XXIII, as well as DSU Articles 3, 22 and 23. On 19 June 1996, the EC requested the establishment of a panel. In its request, the EC further claimed that the United States apparently failed to "ensure the conformity of its laws, regulations and administrative procedures with its obligations" under the ϲʹ, with respect to the application of Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act in this case (ϲʹ Agreement Article XVI:4). The United States withdrew the measure on 15 July 1996, and the EC decided not to pursue its panel request, reserving its rights to reconvene, if necessary, a further meeting of the DSB at an early date. (9) European Communities - Trade Description of Scallops, complaints by Canada (WT/DS7), Peru (WT/DS12) and Chile (WT/DS14). The complaint concerns a French Government Order laying down the official name and trade description of scallops. Complainants claim that this Order will reduce competitiveness on the French market as their product will no longer be able to be sold as "Coquille Saint-Jacques" although there is no difference between their scallops and French scallops in terms of colour, size, texture, appearance and use, i.e. it is claimed they are "like products". Violations of GATTArticles I and III and TBT Article2 are alleged. A panel was established at the request of Canada on 19July 1995. A joint panel was established on 11 October 1995 at the request of Peru and Chile on the same subject. The two panels have concluded their substantive work, but they suspended the proceedings pursuant to Article 12.12 of the DSU in May 1996 in view of the consultations held among the parties concerned toward a mutually agreed solution. The parties notified a mutually agreed solution to the DSB on 5 July 1996. Brief panel reports noting the settlement were circulated to Members on 5 August 1996 in accordance with the provisions of Article 12.7 of the DSU. (8) United States - Measures Affecting Imports of Women's and Girls' Wool Coats, complaint by India (WT/DS32). In a communication dated 14 March 1996, India requested the establishment of a panel, claiming that the transitional safeguard measures on these textile products by the United States were inconsistent with ATC Articles 2, 6 and 8. A panel was established in the DSB meeting on 17April1996. However, on 25 April 1996, India requested "termination of further action in pursuance of the decision taken by the DSB on 17 April 1996 to establish a panel" in light of the US removal of the safeguard measures on these products, which came into effect from 24 April 1996. (7) Korea - Measures Concerning Bottled Water, complaint by Canada (WT/DS20). In this request, dated 8 November 1995, Canada claimed that Korean regulations on the shelf-life and physical treatment (disinfection) of bottled water were inconsistent with GATT Articles III and XI, SPS Articles2 and 5 and TBT Article 2. At the DSB meeting on 24 April 1996, the parties to the dispute announced that they reached a settlement. (6) Venezuela - Anti-Dumping Investigation in Respect of Imports of Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods (OCTG), complaint by Mexico (WT/DS23), dated 5 December 1995. By a letter dated 6 May 1997, Mexico informed the Secretariat that Venezuela had terminated the anti-dumping investigation in this matter. (5)(a) European Communities - Duties on Imports of Cereals, complaint by Canada (WT/DS9). Canada requested consultations with the EC on 10July 1995 concerning EC regulations implementing some of the EC's Uruguay Round concessions on agriculture, specifically, regulations which impose a duty on wheat imports based on reference prices rather than transaction values, with the result that the duty-paid import price for Canadian wheat will be greater than the effective intervention price increased by 55% whenever the transaction value is greater than the representative price. A panel was established at the DSB meeting on 11 October 1995, but no panelists have been selected. (5)(b) European Communities - Duties on Imports of Grains, complaint by the United States (WT/DS13). This request for consultations, dated 19July 1995, has potentially broader product coverage than the case brought by Canada (WT/DS9, item 7(5)(a) below) but otherwise concerns much the same issues. On 28 September 1995, the US requested the establishment of a panel to be considered at the meeting of the DSB on 11 October 1995, but the EC objected to it. The US again requested the establishment of a panel to be considered at the meeting of the DSB on 3 December 1996, but later dropped the request at the meeting. On 13 February 1997 the US made a renewed request for the establishment of a panel. At the DSB meeting on 20 March 1997, the US withdrew its request for a panel in this matter. On 26 March 1997, the US made a fresh request for the establishment of a panel. On 30 April 1997, the US informed the Secretariat that it was withdrawing its request for a panel in view of the fact that the EC had adopted regulations implementing an agreement reached on this matter. (5)(c) European Communities - Duties on Imports of Rice, complaint by Thailand (WT/DS17). This request for consultations, dated 3 October 1995, covers more or less the same grounds as Canadian (WT/DS9) and the US (WT/DS13) complaints over the EC duties on grains ((5)(a) and 5(3) above). In addition, Thailand seems to have alleged that the EC has violated the most-favoured-nation requirement under GATT Article I in their preferential treatment of basmati rice from India and Pakistan. See also the Uruguayan complaint (WT/DS25). (5)(d) European Communities - Implementation of the Uruguay Round Commitments Concerning Rice, complaint by Uruguay (WT/DS25). This request for consultations, dated 18 December 1995, seems similar to the claim by Thailand (WT/DS17). (4) Japan - Measures Affecting the Purchase of Telecommunications Equipment, complaint by the European Communities (WT/DS15). This request for consultations, dated 18August 1995, claims that a 1994 agreement reached between the United States and Japan concerning telecommunications equipment is inconsistent with GATTArticlesI:1, III:4 and XVII:1(c), and nullifies or impairs benefits accruing to the EC. The United States has joined in the consultations. Although there has been no official notification, the case appears to have been settled bilaterally. (3) United States - Imposition of Import Duties on Automobiles from Japan under Sections301 and 304 of the Trade Act of 1974, complaint by Japan (WT/DS6). On 19July 1995, the parties notified settlement of this dispute. Japan had alleged that the import surcharges violated GATT Articles I andII. (2) Korea - Measures Concerning the Shelf-life of Products, complaint by the United States (WT/DS5). This request dated 3 May 1995, was in respect of requirements imposed by Korea on imports from the US which had the effect of restricting imports. The US alleged violations of ArticlesIII and XI of GATT, Articles 2 and 5 of the SPS Agreement, Article 2 of the TBT Agreement, and Article 4 of the Agreement on Agriculture. The parties notified a mutually acceptable solution to this dispute on 31July 1995. (1) Malaysia - Prohibition of Imports of Polyethylene and Polypropylene, complaint by Singapore (WT/DS1). This, the first dispute under the ϲʹ's dispute settlement procedures, was settled on 19July 1995, with Singapore's withdrawal of the panel request. SUMMARY Case titles in bold indicate those cases where the panel and appellate review process has been completed; Case titles in italics indicate those cases where settlement has been notified or is apparent; Active panels are underlined. Complaints by developed country Members (122 matters / 150 requests) Respondent developedUS, automobiles (DS6) Japan, alcoholic beverages (DS8, DS10, DS11) Japan, telecom (DS15) Australia, salmon (DS18) Australia, salmon (DS21) EC, hormones (DS26, DS48) Japan, sound recordings (DS28, DS42) Canada, periodicals (DS31) Portugal, patent (DS37) US, Cuba (Helms Burton) Act (DS38) US, hormones retaliation (DS39) Japan, film (DS44) Japan, distribution (DS45) Australia, leather (DS57) EC, UK, Ireland, computers (DS62, DS67, DS68) US, urea (DS63) Japan, pork (DS66) EC, butter (DS72) Japan, procurement (DS73) Japan, agricultural products (DS76) Belgium, telephone directories (DS80) Ireland, copyright (grant of rights) (DS82) Denmark, intellectual property (enforcement) (DS83) US, textiles (DS85) Sweden, intellectual property (enforcement) (DS86) US, government procurement (DS88, DS95) US, poultry (DS100) Canada, subsidies (milk and cheese) (DS103) EC, subsidies (processed cheese) (DS104) Australia, subsidies (auto leather) (DS106, DS126) US, foreign sales corporations (tax treatment) (DS108) Canada, dairy exports (DS113) Canada, patent protection (pharmaceuticals) (DS114) Canada, film distribution (DS117) US, harbour tax (DS118) Australia, anti-dumping measures (paper sheets) (DS119) EC, Greece, intellectual property (DS124, DS125) Belgium, France, Greece, Ireland, Netherlands, subsidies (income tax measures) (DS127, DS128, DS129, DS130, DS131) Slovak Republic, dairy products (DS133) EC asbestos (DS135) US, Anti-Dumping Act 1916 (DS136) EC, wood conifers (DS137) US, countervailing duties (lead & steel) (DS138) Canada, auto industry (DS139, DS142) Slovak Republic, import duty (wheat) (DS143) US, cattle & swine (DS144) Japan, tariff quotas (leather) (DS147) Czech Republic, import duty (wheat) (DS148) US, textiles (DS151) US, sections 301-310 (DS152) EC patent protection (pharmaceuticals) (DS153) EC Bananas II (DS158) US, copyrights (DS160) US, Anti-Dumping Act 1916 (II) (DS162) US, import measures (bananas retaliation) (DS165) US, Wheat Gluten (DS166) US, countervailing duty (Cattle) (DS167) Canada, patent protection (DS170) EC & France, subsidies (FMS for Airbus) (DS172, 173) EC, trademark protection (DS174) US, Omnibus Act (Cuban rum trademarks) (DS176) US, Lamb (NZ) (DS177) US, Lamb (Australia) (DS178) US, anti-dumping (steel) (DS184) US, Section 337 (DS186) US, countervailing duties (export restraints) (DS194) US, Section 306 (retaliation) (DS200) Belgium, Customs Duties for Rice (DS210) US, Countervailing Measures (DS212) US, Carbon Steel (DS213) US, Wire Rod and Line Pipe (DS214) US, Section 129(c)(1)(DS221) EC, Corn Gluten Feed (DS223) US, Seamless Pipe (DS225) Respondents developing Korea, inspection of agricultural products (DS3, DS41) Korea, shelf-life (DS5) Korea, bottled water (DS20) Pakistan, patent (DS36) Korea, telecom (DS40) Turkey, film tax (DS43) Brazil, aircraft (DS46) India, patent (DS50) Brazil, automobiles (DS51, DS52, DS65, 81) Mexico, customs valuation (DS53) Indonesia, automobiles (DS54, DS55, DS59, DS64) Argentina, textiles (DS56) Philippines, pork and poultry (DS74, DS102) Korea, alcoholic beverages (DS75, DS84) Argentina, textiles (DS77) India, patent (DS79) Chile, alcoholic beverages (DS87) India quantitative restrictions (DS90) India, quantitative restrictions (DS91, DS92, DS93, DS94, DS96) Korea, safeguard measure (dairy) (DS98) Mexico, anti-dumping (corn syrup) (DS101) Pakistan, hides, skins and leather (DS107) Chile, alcoholic beverages (DS109, DS110 only) Brazil, import payment terms (DS116) India, export commodities (DS120) Argentina, safeguard measures (footwear) (DS121) Thailand, anti-dumping duties (metal products) (DS122) Mexico, anti-dumping (corn syrup) (DS132) Argentina, countervailing duties (wheat gluten) (DS145) India, auto (DS146) India, import restrictions (DS149) India, customs duties (DS150) Argentina, bovine hides (DS155) Argentina, anti-dumping (drill bits)(DS157) Hungary, safeguard measure (steel) (DS159) Korea, beef imports (DS161, DS169) Korea, Government Procurement (DS163) Argentina, import measures (footwear), (DS164) Argentina, patent protection (DS171) India, motor vehicles (DS175) Brazil, import licensing (DS183) Argentina, anti-dumping (card-board and ceramic floor tiles) (DS189) Chile, swordfish (DS193) Philippines, motor vehicles (DS195) Argentina, patent protection (DS196) Brazil, minimum import prices (DS197) Romania, minimum import prices (DS198) Brazil, patent protection (DS199) Mexico, live swine (DS203) Mexico, telecommunications services (DS204) Complaints by developing country Members (56 matters / 63 requests) Respondent developed  US, gasoline (DS2, DS4) Poland, automobiles (DS19) US, underwear (DS24) US, wool coats (DS32) US, wool shirts (DS33) US, tomatoes (DS49) US, shrimp (DS58, DS61) EC, poultry (DS69) Canada, aircraft (DS70, DS71) US, brooms (DS78) US, anti-dumping duties (CTVs) (DS89) US, countervailing measures (salmon) (DS97) US, anti-dumping (DRAMS) (DS99) EC, bananas (DS105) US, tariff rate quota (groundnuts) (DS111), EC, import duties (rice) (DS134), EC, anti-dumping investigation (cotton fabrics) (DS140) EC, anti-dumping duties (bed-linen) (DS141) EC, special & differential treatment (coffee) (DS154) South Africa, anti-dumping (pharmaceuticals) (DS168) US, anti-dumping measures (steel) (DS179) US, textiles (cotton yarn) (DS192) US, safeguard measures (line pipe) (DS202) US, Steel Plate (DS206) EC, Soluble Coffee (DS209) US, Carbon Steel (DS218) EC, Pipe Fittings (DS219) Canada, Export Credits and Loan Guarantees (DS222) US, Patents Code (DS224) EC, Sardines (DS231) Respondent developing Malaysia, polyethylene and polypropylene (DS1) Brazil, coconut (Philippines) (DS22) Venezuela, OCTG (DS23) Turkey, textiles (DS29, DS34, DS47) Brazil, coconut (Sri Lanka) (DS30) Guatemala, cement (DS60) Peru, countervailing duty investigation (buses) (DS112) Argentina, subsidies (footwear) (DS123) Guatemala, cement (DS156) Colombia, safeguard (polyester) (DS181) Ecuador, anti-dumping (cement) (DS182) Trinidad and Tobago, pasta (DS185) Trinidad and Tobago, anti-dumping (pasta) (DS187) Nicaragua, imports from Honduras and Colombia (I) (DS188) Argentina, safeguards (cotton fabrics) (DS190) Ecuador, anti-dumping (cement) (DS191) Nicaragua, imports from Honduras and Colombia (II) (DS201) Egypt, import prohibition (DS205) Chile, Price Band System and Safeguard Measures (DS207) Turkey, Steel and Iron Pipe Fittings (DS208) Egypt, Steel Rebar (DS211) Philippines, Polypropylene Resins (DS215) Mexico, Electric Transformers (DS216) Chile, Price Band System and Safeguard Measures (DS220) Chile, Mixed Edible Oils (DS226) Peru, Cigarettes (DS227) Brazil, Jute Bags (DS229) Chile, Sugar (DS230) Mexico, Matches (DS232) Argentina Pharmaceutical Products (DS233) Complaints by both developed and developing country Members (5 matters / 12 requests) Respondent developedEC, scallops (DS7, DS12, DS14) EC, grains (DS9, DS13, DS17, DS25) EC, bananas (DS16, DS27) Hungary, export subsidies (DS35) US, 2000 Offset Act (DS217) US, 2000 Offset Act (DS234) (Canada and Mexico) Total number of distinct matters: 180 Total number of consultation requests: 234 PAGE  -  PAGE 85 -  This figure includes some requests made by developed country Members (DS7, DS9 and DS13). The total number of consultation requests made by developing country Members is 52. On the basis of distinct matters, the number is 42.  Some requests for the establishment of a panel (DS32, DS33, DS181, DS190 and DS192) were not preceded by requests for consultations under the DSU. Nonetheless, they are included in this figure since consultations were in fact held pursuant to the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing. __________ <=@D ,   / 1 2 > ? B j k l  !2345cfgMOPgNP23 jUCJCJH*55CJ@H*:@ 5:@@CJ$5:@CJ$5@@P =>?@ ,-.f$ *$p 0$*$ 0 *$0 0*$p 0$*$p 0*$ 0$*$ B#0Gz#wUxUWWC^D^aa(b)bbb$d%d4h5hkk^y]~zvx x           O  ӭ ԭ x y   ϶ ж   % & i j   5 6 # = < -?D  [ 6 y    *$Z6$ 0$*$ 0*$ 0 *$p 0 1 A B l \w$$x! "$*$Z6$ 0$$x " *$6$ g $*$Z$ g $*$6$  *$Z6$  $*$6$   4c<$$xn "$*$Z6$ 0cdefgOwj]QQQ $*$6$  *$Z6$  *$Z6$ 0CEƀA&D$EƀA&OPgyhL$$xn $s#$$x! $s#$*$Z6$ 0$$x $s#M2oD$EƀA&CEƀA&< +,-./mn    &'ABCEFYZtuvxyjkUmH 5;mHjUmH;mHjqUmHjUmHjwUmHjUmHj}UmHjUmH jUmHmH jU;0Gz#PQCEƀ*$ 0= 8# < <!"`a{|}UE#(G9HwU{U|UUW&XJ^^aa(b)b.bybb4c$d%d*dhd4h5h:hhkkk'l]ycyy̿6@mH >*>*@@j@CJUjUmHjeUmHjUmH jUmHmHKQwUxUWWC^D^aa(b)bbb$d%d4h5hkk^y & F*$ 0yLό'BƜSs\]^bcRklqV:{dem%nL().|}~$%&+`o6 >*@B*@B*5@6@>*@@Z]^klLMuvde *$ 0]^klLMuvde ()}~%&KLTUÿ{wsokgY        a b     % % /. 0. 7 7 8 8 ; ; < < HB IB 7I 8I I I `R aR A] B] Oq Pq &()}~%&KLTU     *$ 0o$JLST&t)SUZy  " x       V  k=QRW#?++f-1.//223 44Y4P66CDlIII5@>*6>*@@_U    PQ  QR+HIJcdeABC\]^8TUVnop;<=>?iÿ         [ \       \ ]       X <PQ  QR 4 4CEƀ*$ 0 4K6L6II`ccrr{{9:cd*$ 0II@J=ZCZZZ_`aa`ccFd j j-j2jjj"k'kqkrkTlUlalblnlslxl}lxmymzmmmmmnnnnoooo?pApvp{ppprrrnrQsYstt{{{#|9:>& @zϞО !#cB*hmH nH  hmH nH B*CJ 5@6>*Zcdhâݥ+67´  83?W4KOho_vMd"8lmq?@AZ 't,\q{    v   !@&A&E&&,,,-556D6:6B*6@>*@B*>*^4lm>?@AV $ *$ 0CEƀ$%  =pq  @&A&,,55::%@&@EEEE :::";$@&@+@E@EEE FWFlF~FFFGGHH*JKK`NUUUIWRW\\M^T^f^^``` apbbpddsf}fjDjGpHpMpppu\u`vjv}}-7]gȃ҃?^?;STeoǣѣy65mH mH 6hmH nH  hmH nH ;>*ZEEEUU\\``jdkdiiGpHpuu}}9: CEƀڛۛ{|`a 67h fU)Q[ "av<v8n9<=#g#''.)/C1M1112455738:;==?? @X@3BBEELMMMT$T!UU\:]``bZbd>efVf3j4j5j5@@65>*`hi34~7#8#''..11.5/57::==@@ 4$@-B.BEELLMMUU\\bbdd4j5jllqquuKxLx{{*$ 0 5j:jjjjlll3mqCruuuLxQxlx{{*|+|C|ijkppqv҈>C efk̐,eИ%`;̥ J;pm2Y³X϶UyOTgbl@lu6@65@>*@>*@^{jkpq=>ef˘ }~5 *$ 0*$ 056gh,-RSɶʶOPab:; op*$ 0bc*$ 0:Y,Dj"sN_8 !1K_`e   z  .""",,U-_-..L0Q009B9C9K99EEEREGGH$O.O*5;5@6@>*@@\ !L_`q r  $*$ 0CEƀ*$ 0""K0L0B9C9 EEGG*@>*@`xy}~MNBCެ߬~45opmnno*$ 023`abcWX8 9 &&y/z/5*$ 05599*=+==A>AFFJJJPPRRUUhWiW CEƀgD&.*$ 099/=}=BAfAF$GJJJJ@PPPR=SU\VgWnWW\\\=]cdXdLeejkjljmjrjjqrrs@s.yfyz,{={&',wJKP]Zd_ԝ1,ɢ;{7߮gin5@6>*@>*@_iW\\FeGeljmjrs%y&yzz78{|&'JKWXTU[\ *$ 0\˝̝#$56hiڼۼ01*$ 0nؼۼ89e./5u/05tEFLrx\]bw:<Cv+\+-C-tau+9AR[lu6@5@@>*@_1/0/0FGrs]^  ;<#$;<()*$ 0)\]c *$6$ 0 *$Z$ 0 *$p 0CEƀ:F.*$ 0`ab|}~h)t| $$x0B# *$Z$ ) $$x0B# *$6$ 0 *$Z6$ 0 $$x0B# *4?cvy6YD +Sak # (  09JR`7Q>*@ 5>*@6@@5@\Q| @Ij@Jx<SUjGfr$4XZ\uh Mo _&>*<@>*@6@5@@]+HIJcdeABlzxm *$Z6$ 0 $$x0B# *$Z6$ ) $$x0B# *$6$ 0 *$Z$ 0 $$x0B# BC\]^8TUVnlppoh $$x0B# *$Z$ 0 *$Z6$ 0 $$x0B# *$6$ 0 *$Z6$ ) $$x0B# &BqJl|QRSp|:5@CJmH j0JG@CJUmH  @CJmH  j0JUCJhmHjUhnH hnH 0JH j0JHUj0JG@U j0JGU>*6@5@4;<=>?i4*$$*$II&`#$*$ 0 $$x0B# *$Z6$ 0 $$x0B# *$6$ 0 $*$ 0 $*$ 0I  000P. A!"#$%...()()())))()}DyK _Toc519419150}DyK _Toc519419151}DyK _Toc519419152}DyK _Toc519419153}DyK _Toc519419154}DyK _Toc519419155}DyK _Toc519419156}DyK _Toc519419157}DyK _Toc519419158}DyK _Toc519419159}DyK _Toc519419160K [4@4Normal $ CJmH @" Heading 1$ & F60@&Eƀ:F.5;J@2J Heading 2"$ & F70@& h:JBJ Heading 3"$ & F80@& h5FRF Heading 4"$ & F90@& h@@ Heading 5 & F:0@&6.. Heading 6 @&.. Heading 7 @&<A@<Default Paragraph Font<B< Body Text,b & F1 h4T4 Block Text6P@6 Body Text 2  & F2@Q"@Body Text 3,b3 & F3pH2H Body Text 4 & F4p0 8p6B6 Body Text 5  & F5LMRLBody Text First Indent  & FBCbBBody Text Indent,b2 HNarHBody Text First Indent 2FRFBody Text Indent 2dDSDBody Text Indent 3 CJ:+@: Endnote Text $ CJ8&@8Footnote ReferenceH*XXFootnote Text,fn,footnote textCJ* *Index 1 #.!. Index Heading$/$List 0(2(List 2 0(3(List 3 !(4"(List 4 "p0(52(List 5 #20B2 List Bullet $ & F;D6RD List Bullet 2% & F<0 H7bH List Bullet 3& & F= @H8rH List Bullet 4' & F>p0 H9H List Bullet 5( & F? 6D6 List Continue )>E>List Continue 2*:F:List Continue 3 +>G>List Continue 4,>H>List Continue 5-p0818 List Number. & FD hD:D List Number 2/ & F@0 D;D List Number 30 & FA D<D List Number 41 & FBp0 D="D List Number 52 & FC 4Z24 Plain Text3 CJOJQJ*J@B*Subtitle4$@&<,<Table of Authorities5<#<Table of Figures 6 ,>r,Title7$ 5;KH**Title 28$>***Title 39$666 Title Country:$;... TOA Heading;5D@DTOC 1<$xx 8# 5;@CJ4@4TOC 2=$ :CJ44TOC 3>$ 6CJ00TOC 4?$ CJ00TOC 5@$p CJ00TOC 6A$L CJ00TOC 7B$( CJ00TOC 8C$ CJ00TOC 9D$ CJJRJParagr. Num. - WTOE & FE h\$b\Envelope AddressF&@ /+D CJOJQJ6*@q6Endnote ReferenceH*&)@& Page NumberD@DHeaderI$1$ 9r OJQJhnH . .FooterJ 9r   #yoIc:5j3i9nQ&!$'+.259:= cOQ 4$Eh@{5x5iW\1)Bn     "#%&()*,-/0134678;<>?]U UnknownPainKabirniaHakong,.m  &BEYux!`| 4%4%4%4%4%4%4%4%4%4%4%4 #!! _Toc519419150 _Toc519419151 _Toc519419152 _Toc519419153 _Ref506976247 _Toc519419154 _Toc519419155 _Toc509909041 _Toc519419156 _Toc519419157 _Toc519419158 _Toc519419159 _Toc519419160>_4>cC 4[uf8>D/m &FYy"`j@r@GG0I7IKKnLuLcihillKmXmGL#(,1.3v{JO9 > 6;38ej!"'"&#,#)*',*,66F:N:??YYef8>{~+.:?BMS4X45 555@@CCIIJJVL_LUUWWWWWWWWYY[[[[[[oo*/   2222*3-3\dOW  BF##$$& &['d'%(((DDMHRHwI|I _gkxy{|!%/7|',UEaEWWWWwe}esu}u gg#$ab<=/m &FYy"`eeKL%&&   Verhoosel&\\Hudson6\Lad\#Lad\gaetan\07-11-01.doc Verhoosel5C:\TEMP\autorecover\AutoRecovery save of 07-11-01.asd Verhoosel&\\Hudson6\Lad\#Lad\gaetan\07-11-01.doc Verhoosel&\\Hudson6\Lad\#Lad\gaetan\07-11-01.doc Verhoosel5C:\TEMP\autorecover\AutoRecovery save of 07-11-01.asd Verhoosel&\\Hudson6\Lad\#Lad\gaetan\07-11-01.doc Verhoosel&\\Hudson6\Lad\#Lad\gaetan\07-11-01.doc Verhoosel&\\Hudson6\Lad\#Lad\gaetan\07-11-01.doc Verhoosel&\\Hudson6\Lad\#Lad\gaetan\07-11-01.doc Verhoosel&\\Hudson6\Lad\#Lad\gaetan\07-11-01.doc| d2} (̠1~40tlv/<(@2r'HN\& >%S(<447 v&`'zdvE\,[]< .QH  >%9p$&'+~Y:`d+t12s7,[f; F5= wE#Oj +`,[3[DgnbGZXg|smg,[kH 7!ulE.... OJQJo( OJQJo( OJQJo( OJQJo(hh. hhOJQJo(0.0.0.0()h.0()p0p()()p@ ()ho(0o(()p0po(()p0po(-0o(()0o(()0o(-p0po(()@ 0@ o(()hhB*OJQJo(ho(.hhB*OJQJo( 0OJQJo(-h..()()h1.0()0()7i7-0o(-.h.h.h()()h.0()0()8h8-hhB*OJQJo( hhOJQJo( hhOJQJo(h1.h.h.h()()h.0()0()8h8-hhB*OJQJo(h1.h.h.h()()h6.0()0()8h8-.h.h1..h56()()h7.0()0()7i7-hhB*OJQJo(hhB*OJQJo(h1.h.h.h()()h7.0()0()8h8-V222247 22222 >%~~}}||222247 22222 >%~}|222247 22222 >%<'zf;2@ 3[Dg 7!uwE#O&'+2 s7mg\ +`kF5=&'+̠ GZXgQ`d+A@A؝ h1.$!h.p"h.#h()$()T%h7.&0()'0()8(8h8- iTii@(B=B?p@pBp@GTimes New Roman5Symbol3& Arial?5 Courier New9CG Times"1hRWF lWlW -h G;!0d<h 26 February 1999Kabirnia beatrice VerhooselOh+'0 $0 L X d p|26 February 1999d6 FKabirnia beatricedabiabi Normal.dota Verhoosela13hMicrosoft Word 8.0@J&@hb@ @T @2y -h՜.+,D՜.+,D hp   OMC - ϲʹr <1 26 February 1999 Title 6> _PID_GUIDAN{B62BD3E9-CD51-11D2-BDCC-000629B02874}  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@BCDEFGHJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklnopqrstvwxyz{|Root Entry F Data A1TableI GWordDocument SummaryInformation(mDocumentSummaryInformation8uCompObjjObjectPool    FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q