|
|
| |
|
Statements Excerpts from Statements at the July 24, 2001 meeting of the DSB Surveillance of Implementation - E Banana Regime We are pleased to announce that, in accordance with the bilateral understanding we reached with the EC, on July 1, the United States suspended the retaliatory duties on EC imports resulting from the WTO banana dispute. Although this understanding is not a mutually agreed solution under Article 3.6 of the DSU, it does provide a hopeful means by which the dispute can be resolved. The second phase of the Understanding is scheduled to be implemented by January 2002, subject to the adoption of a WTO waiver of GATT Article XIII. We very much look forward to the prospect of a resolution to this long-standing dispute. However, we must note our concern that there appears to have been a significant departure from licensing allocations provided for in Phase I of the Understanding as a result of a recent Member State action providing extra licenses to an EC company. We hope to consult soon with the Commission to ensure faithful implementation of the Understanding. The EC status report also reconfirms that the EC needs only an Article XIII waiver, not an Article I waiver, to implement the Understanding. We urge the EC to put the Article XIII waiver forward separately. Also, given the general support in the WTO for an Article I waiver, we are confident that if the EC drafts that waiver in an appropriately narrow and transparent way, the waiver's approval can be assured.
"The United States thanks Japan for its report. We note that Japan's procedures for implementation are moving forward. We once again urge Japan to complete these steps as rapidly as possible, so that we can finally end this dispute. We expect to hear shortly Japan's announcement of its schedule for the remaining procedures." On India's Request for a Panel on AD and CVD Measures on Steel Plate from India We are disappointed that India has chosen to request the establishment of a panel. As a substantive matter, the United States believes that India's assertions are devoid of merit, and, that a panel will so find. In addition, we want to reiterate one comment that we made during the previous session of the DSB. India challenges the "practice" of the Department of Commerce in applying total facts available, both "as such" and "as applied." India's consultation request did not mention any such Commerce Department "practice", and the United States and India did not consult on the issue either. Moreover, neither section 1677m(d) nor 1677m(e) mandates any particular action by the Department of Commerce. In the view of the United States, this alleged "practice" does not constitute a "measure" and is therefore not properly a subject for panel review. We will vigorously defend ourselves before the panel. United States - Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset
Act of 2000: In our view, the Byrd Amendment is fully consistent with our international obligations under the WTO. The Byrd Amendment in no way alters how the United States makes antidumping or countervailing duty determinations, or the amount of duties assessed on dumped or subsidized imports. The WTO agreements do not address what a country may do with antidumping and countervailing duties after they have been collected. We intend to vigorously defend this measure before a WTO panel, should one be established in the future. We cannot agree to establish a panel at this meeting.
This case continues a troubling trend of Canada filing panel requests over legal provisions that have never been applied. The previous example was the so-called "export restraints" case, where Canada burdened the WTO dispute settlement process with another theoretical "dispute." The United States has never applied Section 129(c)(1), and we are unaware of any antidumping or countervailing duty orders on Canadian products that would implicate the provision. This increasing tendency to bring theoretical disputes should cause Members concern from a systemic viewpoint. The WTO dispute settlement system is already overburdened with actual disputes. Moreover, judging from its panel request, it appears that Canada intends to raise arguments that would apply a higher level of WTO obligations to countries with retrospective duty assessment systems than to countries with prospective duty assessment systems. It also appears that Canada is seeking retroactive application of WTO decisions. Neither outcome would be appropriate under WTO rules. For all of these reasons, we urge Canada to reconsider its decision to request a panel in this matter. In any event, we are not prepared to consent to the establishment of a panel at today's meeting. United States - Section 110(5) of the Us Copyright Act - Proposed Notification of the Reasonable Period of Time under Article 21.3 of the DSU As you know, the reasonable period of time for the United States to respond to the Dispute Settlement Body recommendation in United States - Section 110(5) of the U.S. Copyright Acts expires on July 27, 2001. We have been working actively with the European Communities to resolve this dispute, and have begun negotiations on compensation. To facilitate those negotiations, the US and the EC have jointly requested arbitration pursuant to Article 25 to determine the level of nullification and impairment of benefits to the EC as a result of Section 110(5)(B) of the US Copyright Act. As members are aware, as stated in Article 3.7 of the DSU, the aim of the dispute settlement process is to secure a positive and mutually acceptable solution. In order to help us fulfill this objective and continue our constructive dialogue with the EC, we request the DSB to extend the reasonable period of time for the United States to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this case until the end of the current session of Congress or December 31, 2001, whichever is earlier. United States - Antidumping Act of 1916 - Proposed Notification of the Reasonable Period of Time under Article 21.3 of the DSU As you know, the reasonable period of time for the United States to respond to the WTO ruling on the Antidumping Act of 1916 expires on July 26, 2001. The United States has proposed that this time be extended -- until the end of the current session of the U.S. Congress or December 31, 2001, whichever is earlier. The U.S. Administration has proposed to the U.S. Congress legislation to repeal the 1916 Act and will be working with the Congress to secure its enactment. The additional time we are requesting today is needed for our legislative process. We understand that the European Communities and Japan do not object to this extension, with the understanding that in the event of any future recourse to the procedures of Article 22 of the DSU with respect to this dispute, the quote - "expiry of the reasonable period of time" end quote - referred to in the DSU shall, for the purposes of such recourse, be the date approved by the DSB today, instead of July 26, 2001. In view of the fact that all parties to this dispute are seeking a satisfactory resolution that will be facilitated by this extension of time, we request that the DSB approve the proposed extension at this time. The United States is pleased that the Canadian Government has enacted legislation to amend its Patent Act with the stated intent of bringing the law into conformity with its obligations under the TRIPS Agreement. The United States will closely review the legislation.
|