Skip to main content

WTO Dispute Settlement Bulletin

Monthly Bulletin: February 2002

Australia and WTO dispute settlement

Subscription / unsubscription information

RESOLVING EXPORT ACCESS PROBLEMS THROUGH THE WTO SYSTEM

  • Are you an exporter or intending to export?
  • Do you export to one or more of the 144 markets that belong
    to the World Trade Organization?
  • Are you experiencing access problems in one or more of those markets?
  • Is the access problem caused by a regulation or directive of the
    importing government (at central, regional or local government level?)

If you have answered "yes" to those questions, the WTO Trade
Law Branch of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade stands ready to
assist in developing options for resolution of your access problems.
Exporters can contact WTO legal specialists in the Department on the
following numbers:

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

US International Trade Commission Investigation into Steel

The January Bulletin featured an update on the possibility of the
United States introducing import restrictions on steel imports following
the safeguards enquiry conducted by the United States International
Trade Commission (USITC) last year. A decision by President Bush
on what action the Administration will take is due on 6 March.

Australian Ministers and industry have been in regular contact
with the US Administration to explain that the Australian steel
industry is an unsubsidised, restructured and globally competitive
industry and to put forward suggestions on what action could be
taken. Once the President's decision has been announced, Mr Vaile
will consider all options for protecting Australia's commercial
and trade policy interests in this case, including possible WTO
action given our concerns about the legal basis for the USITC's
findings.

Australian to Serve on Panel

Mr Robert Arnottt, formerly with Australia's Department of Foreign
Affairs and Trade, has been selected to serve as a panellist in
United States Softwood Lumber (WT/DS236). This panel was
established by the DSB at its 5 December 2001 meeting, at the request
of the Canada.

A list of Australian nationals who have served or are serving as
WTO panellists and of Australian experts who have advised WTO Panels
can be found on DFAT's web-site at /trade/negotiations/wto_disputes.html

WTO Disputes in the Automotive Sector

A summary of WTO disputes that have related to the automotive sector
is attached to this Bulletin for the information of readers.

Australia as a Complainant (1)

United States: Continuing Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act
of 2000 (Byrd Amendment) (WT/DS217 and WT/DS234)

The first oral hearing before the Panel, held on 5-6
February, highlighted the key legal and factual issues facing the
Panel in this dispute. The eleven co-complainants (including Australia)
are arguing that the United States Continued Dumping and Subsidy
Offset Act of 2000
(the Byrd Amendment) is inconsistent with
US obligations under GATT 1994, the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the
Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. This Act requires
US customs authorities to distribute anti-dumping and countervailing
duties assessed on imports to US domestic parties that supported
the original petition for anti-dumping or countervailing duties
to be imposed. A second oral hearing before the Panel has been
scheduled for 12 March. The Panel is expected to release its final
report on 10 July 2002. Copies of Australia's submissions to the
Byrd Amendment panel can be found at: http://203.6.171.3/trade/negotiations/disputes/wto_disputes-US_AD.html

Disputes involving Australia as a Third Party (7)

Chile: Price band system and safeguard measures relating
to certain agricultural products (WT/DS207)

No new developments. The Panel is expected to complete its work
by the end of March 2002.

European Communities (EC): Measures affecting meat and meat
products (Hormones) (WT/DS26)

No new developments. The EC is still facing WTO-authorised retaliation
by the US and Canada because of its failure to implement within
a reasonable period of time. We understand that the US and the
EC are engaged in discussions on a compensation arrangement.

Canada: Measures affecting the importation of milk and the
exportation of dairy products (WT/DS103 and WT/DS113)

A Panel has been composed to consider the US and New Zealand's
second recourse to Article 21.5 in this dispute and will hold its
oral hearing on 23 April. The US and New Zealand have submitted
that, since the Appellate Body's 21.5 Report did not make any findings
on the consistency of Canada's new measures, they continue to believe
that Canada has failed to comply with the original recommendations
and rulings of the DSB. Australia, the EC and Argentina have reserved
their third-party rights to participate in the Panel's proceedings.
Third party submissions are due on 25 March. The final report is
due by 22 May.

United States: Section 110(5) Copyright Act (Homestyle
exemption) (WT/DS160)

Following the US failure to bring its measures into conformity
within the agreed reasonable period of time, the EC requested DSB
authorisation to suspend concessions pursuant to Article 22.2 of
the DSU. The US objected to the level of suspension of obligations
proposed by the EC and the matter has been referred to arbitration.
However, the arbitration was suspended as the EC and the US continue
to be engaged in discussions with respect to this dispute, including
on a compensation arrangement. It is understood that this compensation
arrangement will involve the US paying the EC US$1.1 million per
annum over three years pending implementation of the Panel's findings.
This the first time that a compensation arrangement in the WTO dispute
settlement system has involved the payment of monetary compensation.
Australia has continued to register its expectation that any compensation
will be applied on a non-discriminatory basis.

United States: Definitive safeguard measures on imports of
circular welded carbon quality line pipe from Korea (WT/DS202)

The Appellate Body has largely found in favour of Korea's challenge
to the February 2000 US line pipe safeguard. It found that the
safeguard exceeded the extent of the remedy allowed under the Safeguards
Agreement as it was not tailored to the injury caused by imports
alone. It also found that elements of the US International Trade
Commission injury investigation that preceded the imposition of
the safeguard were inconsistent with the Safeguards Agreement.
However, the Appellate Body also reversed one Panel finding and
upheld another to find in favour of the US on certain aspects.
The Appellate Body's findings may have implications for the current
US consideration of trade remedies for steel (see Recent Developments
above).

United States: Tax Treatment for Foreign Sales Corporations
(WT/DS108)

The adoption of the Panel and Appellate Body reports (following
the Appellate Body's finding that the US replacement measure was
WTO-inconsistent) has triggered the re-activation of the suspended
arbitration on the EC's USD 4 billion retaliation claim. The US
has objected to the level claimed by the EC and has argued that
the annual retaliation by the EC should not exceed USD 956 million.
The arbitration procedure has been extended to 90 days by the arbitrators
and is expected to be concluded by the end of April. Following
the circulation of the arbitration report, the EC can seek DSB authorisation
to proceed with the retaliatory action against the US specified
in the arbitrator's award.

Canada: Export credits and loans guarantees for regional
aircraft (WT/DS222)

The Panel's report was adopted at the 19 February DSB meeting.
The Panel's findings had upheld Brazil's claim that the Canadian
Export Development Corporation's (EDC) provision of financing to
three Canadian civil airlines (for the specific transactions, not
the programmes themselves) constituted prohibited export subsidies
contrary to the Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Agreement
(SCM Agreement). The Panel recommended that Canada withdraw these
subsidies within 90 days. Canada and Brazil are engaged in discussions
on implementation. Upon adoption of the report, Canada, the US
and the EC were critical of the Panel's finding that an exemption
from a prohibition on export subsidies under the SCM Agreement (relating
to OECD interest rate provisions) did not apply. (See also the report
under the 19 February DSB meeting below).

Disputes in which Australia has a policy or economic interest
(5)

Japan: Measures affecting agricultural products (Varietal
testing) (WT/DS76)

No new developments. Japan reached an agreement with the US on
a mutually satisfactory solution last September. Australia has registered
its expectation that the outcome will be applied in a non-discriminatory
manner to the products of all WTO members.

EC: Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of
Bananas (WT/DS27)

Following the entry into force in January of a new EC banana import
regime, giving effect to Phase II of the bilateral understandings
that the EC had reached with the US and Ecuador, the US terminated
its DSB-authorised suspension of concessions against the EC that
had been in place since 1999. The new regime relies for its WTO-consistency
on waivers granted to the EC at the Doha Ministerial Conference
in November 2001. The EC has said that it will move to a tariff-only
banana import regime by 2006, when these waivers expire, in order
to remain in full conformity with its WTO obligations. (See also
the report on the 1 February DSB meeting below).

United States: Section 129(c)(1) of the Uruguay Round Agreements
Act (WT/DS221)

No new developments. Canada is challenging the legality of a specific
aspect of the US statute controlling the US implementation of DSB
rulings. A panel was established at the 23 August 2001 DSB meeting,
and was constituted on 30 October. Third party rights were reserved
by the EC, India, Japan and Chile.

United States: Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act (WT/DS176)

The Panel and Appellate Body Reports were adopted at the 1 February
DSB meeting. The US told the 19 February DSB meeting that it would
need a reasonable period of time to implement the DSB recommendations
(see reports on these meetings below). The Appellate Body had upheld
aspects of the EC appeal in finding that the US law known as Section
211 (which prevents US recognition of trademarks and other intellectual
property used in connection with confiscated property) is inconsistent
with US national treatment and most-favoured-nation obligations
under the WTO TRIPS Agreement. In a finding that was welcomed by
both the EC and the US, it also reversed the Panel's finding on
trade names (company or business names that are not registered as
trademarks) and found that WTO Members do have an obligation under
this Agreement to provide protection to trade names.

EC: Generalized System of Preferences (WT/DS242)

Thailand has requested consultations with the EC under Article
XXIII of GATT 1994 in respect of measures under the EC' Generalized
System of Preferences (GSP) scheme. Consultations took place
on 14 February. Thailand is claiming that, through its GSP scheme
as implemented, the EC fails to carry out its obligations under
Article I of GATT 1994 (Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment) and the
Enabling Clause, as incorporated into GATT 1994. Thailand has also
made a non-violation claim. This request is linked to the EC's
WTO waiver request for its GSP scheme in relation to additional
preferences for a designated list of countries. Costa Rica, Guatemala,
Honduras, Nicaragua and Colombia requested to be joined in the consultations
as third partiesbut Thailand exercised its rights under Article
XXIII to reject the requests. This dispute raises a number of systemic
issues of interest/concern to Australia, including jurisprudence
on GSP graduation, the application of non-economic conditionality
to the grant of GSP preferences and the potential for this issue
to be divisive for developing countries.

Meetings of the Dispute Settlement Body: February 2002

The DSB, consisting of all the Members of the WTO, met on 1 February
and 19 February 2002. The next regular DSB meeting will be held
on 8 March 2002. Australia uses DSB meetings to monitor progress
and to register its views on disputes of interest. The agendas of
the February DSB meetings were as follows (any Australian interventions
are indicated):

DSB Meeting 1 February 2002

1. Surveillance of Implementation of Recommendations adopted
by the DSB

EC Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution
of Bananas (WT/DS27)
- status report by
the EC

The EC confirmed that the Council Regulation giving effect
to Phase II of the bilateral understandings with the US and
Ecuador concerning the EC's implementation had entered into
force. The EC noted that further action would be required
in 2004 in anticipation of the shift to a tariff-only scheme
in 2006. The EC considered that it had now fully implemented
the DSB recommendations and requested that this item be removed
from the agenda of future DSB meetings.

Ecuador, Honduras and Colombia welcomed the EC's notification
but stressed that the EC would only be in conformity with
its WTO obligations once the tariff-only scheme was introduced
in 2006. They expressly reserved their WTO rights, including
the right to seek further recourse to an Article 21.5 implementation
panel in the event of any future disagreement concerning the
EC's implementation.

The US noted that it had terminated the DSB authorised suspension
of concessions against the EC that had been in place since
1999.

2. Surveillance of Implementation of Recommendations adopted
by the DSB

United States Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act
(WT/DS160)

- status report by the US

The US made a brief statement noting that it had been engaged
in discussions with the EC to find a positive and mutually
acceptable resolution of the dispute. The EC said that, notwithstanding
these useful discussions, it remained concerned about the
lack of progress on compliance by the US

Australia registered our ongoing interest in US implementation
and our expectation that any compensation arrangement would
be applied on a non-discriminatory basis. The US assured
Members in response that any such compensation arrangement
would be consistent with the WTO covered agreements.

3. Surveillance of Implementation of Recommendations adopted
by the DSB

United States Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 (WT/DS162)
- status report by the US

The US noted that a bill to repeal the 1916 Act and prevent
entry of judgments pursuant to that Act had been introduced
into Congress, and said that it was continuing to work with
the EC and Japan to reach a mutually satisfactory solution
to this dispute.

The EC said that the Introduction of this bill into Congress
was a first step, but compliance would only be achieved once
the law was effectively repealed and pending cases terminated.
Japan urged the US to move forward with its implementation.

4. Report of the Panel

India Measures Affecting the Automotive Sector (WT/DS146
and WT/DS175)

This item was withdrawn from the agenda as India appealed
the Panel Report.

5. Adoption of Panel and Appellate Body Reports

United States Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act
of 1998 (WT/DS176)

The Panel and Appellate Body Reports were adopted.

The EC and the US welcomed the Appellate Body's confirmation
that trade names do come within the TRIPS Agreement. Both
welcomed some of the findings while expressing disappointment
with others. The US also draw attention to two systemic issues
raised by the Reports: (1) the Panel's findings with respect
to a complaining party's burden of presenting a prima facie
case in WTO dispute settlement proceedings and (2) the Appellate
Body's revised position on municipal law and the scope of
Appellate Body review.

6. Negotiations on Improvements and Clarifications of the DSU

This item was withdrawn from the agenda due to then ongoing
consultations concerning the Trade Negotiations Committee
that will oversee the Doha Round of Trade Negotiations, including
this negotiation.

Special DSB Meeting 19 February 2002

1. Implementation of the Recommendations of the DSB

United States Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act
of 1998 (WT/DS176)

The US stated that it intends to comply with the DSB recommendations
and that it requires a reasonable period of time in which
to do so.

2. Report of the Panel

Canada Export Credits and Loan Guarantees for Regional
Aircraft (WT/DS222)

Canada did not appeal this Report, and accordingly the Panel
Report was adopted.

Canada, the US and the EC expressed concern at the implications
of the Panel's findings for the interpretation of paragraph
(k) of Annex I of the Subsidies and Countervailing Measures
Agreement (SCM Agreement), and specifically the need to protect
the matching provisions of the OECD arrangement on export
credits. While welcoming the decision, Brazil expressed its
dissatisfaction that the SCM Agreement obligated Members to
abide by an OECD arrangement to which it was not a member.

3. Election of the Chairman

Ambassador Castillo (Uruguay) was elected Chair of the Dispute
Settlement Body.

WTO DISPUTES IN THE AUTOMOTIVE SECTOR

(as at February 2002)

Australia - Automotive leather subsidies (WT/DS126)

  • Complaint by USA on loans and grants provided to Howe Leather,
    involving claims of inconsistency with Article 3 of Agreement
    on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)
  • Proceedings completed, panel found inconsistency with Article
    3.1(a) of SCM and implementation panel also found some inconsistency
    with replacement measures. Australia has eliminated WTO-inconsistent
    measures. Mutually satisfactory solution notified 24 July 2000.

Brazil Measures affecting trade and investment in the automotive
sector
(WT/DS51, WT/DS52, WT/DS65 and WT/DS81)

  • Complaint by Japan, USA and EC, covering Article I (MFN), III
    (National Treatment) and XI (quantitative restrictions) of GATT
    1994, Article 2 of Agreement on Trade Related Investment measures
    (TRIMS) and Articles 3 and 27 of SCM
  • At consultation stage

Canada Certain measures affecting the automotive industry
(WT/DS 139 and WT/DS142)

  • Complaints by Japan and the EC, claiming inconsistency with
    Articles I (MFN) III (National Treatment), and XVII (State Trading)
    of GATT 1994 and Articles II, VI and VII of the General Agreement
    on Services (GATS), Article 2 of TRIMS and Article 3 of SCM.
  • Proceedings completed. Canada was found to be acting inconsistently
    with the provisions of Article I, III.4 and XVII of GATT 1994
    and Article 3.1(a) of SCM.

India - Autos (WT/DS146, WT/DS175)

  • Complaints by European Communities (EC) and USA about Articles
    III (national Treatment) and XI (quantitative restrictions) of
    GATT 1994 and Article 2 of TRIMS
  • Panel found that India had acted inconsistently with its obligations
    under Articles III:4 and XI of GATT 1994
  • Panel findings are subject to appeal

Indonesia - Certain measures affecting the automobile industry
(WT/DS54, WT/DS55, WT/DS64)

  • Complaint by EC, Japan and USA, covering Articles I (most-favoured-nation,
    or MFN), II and X of GATT 1994 Articles 2 and 5 of TRIMS, Articles
    3,6,and 28 of the SCM and Articles 3, 20 and 65 of the Agreement
    on Trade Related Intellectual Property (TRIPS)
  • Proceedings completed, Indonesia found not to be in compliance.
    in respect of Articles I and II: 2 of GATT 1994, Article 2 of
    TRIMS and Article 5(c) of SCM. Indonesia has eliminated WTO-inconsistent
    measures.

Peru Countervailing duties on buses from Brazil (WT/DS112)

  • Complaint by Brazil
  • At consultation stage

Philippines Measures affecting trade and investment in the
automotive sector
(WT/DS195)

  • Complaint by USA about Philippines Motor Vehicle Development
    Plan, covering the following WTO legal issues:
    • Articles III and XI of GATT 1994 (National Treatment and Quantitative
      Restrictions); Article 2 of TRIMS and Article 3 SCM
  • At panel stage

Poland Import regime for automobiles (WT/DS19)

  • Complaint by India.
  • Following consultations, the parties notified a mutually satisfactory
    solution on 16 July 1996.

Subscription / unsubscription information

[1] To subscribe please
send an email to wto.disputes@dfat.gov.au with "subscribe" in
the subject line and your contact details in the body of the email. If
you want to be removed from the mailing list please send an email to
wto.disputes@dfat.gov.au with "unsubscribe" in the subject
line.

[2] This publication is
intended to provide a general update and the information within it
should not be relied on as complete or definitive.


The Monthly Bulletin is an overview of Australian involvement
in WTO Dispute Settlement from the WTO Trade Law Branch of the Department of
Foreign Affairs and Trade . It updates Australian involvement in specific WTO
disputes and, more generally, in disputes in which Australia has a policy or
economic interest. Also included are the agendas of meetings of the WTO Dispute
Settlement Body (DSB), with specific reference to any Australian interventions.

For more information and copies of previous issues, visit Australia and WTO
dispute settlement
.

For more general information relating to the Doha
Round of Trade negotiations, see the WTO
Doha Round Bulletin
.

Last Updated: 9 January 2013
Back to top