WTO Dispute Settlement Bulletin
Monthly Bulletin: October 2002
Australia and WTO dispute settlement
To subscribe to this bulletin
Korea - Measures Affecting Trade In Commercial Vessels (WT/DS273)
On 21 October 2002 the EC requested consultations with the Republic of
Korea regarding shipbuilding subsidies. The request was circulated to all
other WTO Members on 24 October.
Australia- Certain Measures Affecting the Importation of Fresh Fruit
and Vegetables (WT/DS/270)
On 18 October 2002 Philippines requested consultations with Australia regarding
its quarantine measures for fresh fruit and vegetables (including bananas).
The request was circulated to all other WTO Members on 23 October. A date
for these consultations has yet to be fixed.
Australia- Certain Measures Affecting the Importation of Fresh Pineapple
On 18 October 2002 Philippines also requested consultations with Australia
regarding its quarantine measures for fresh pineapple fruit. The request
was circulated to all other WTO Members on 23 October. A date for these
consultations has yet to be fixed.
Australia as a Complainant (2)
United States Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (the
"Byrd Amendment") (WT/DS217 and WT/DS204)
On 18 October 2002 the United States lodged its notification to appeal
the panel report. The panel had found that the US measures were inconsistent
with Articles 11.4 and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement, as well as Articles 5.4
and 18.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. However, claims under Article 8.3
of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, Articles 5(b) and18.3 of the SCM Agreement
and Article X:3(a) of GATT 1994 were not established.
The panel was established at the request of Australia, Brazil, Canada,
Chile, the European Communities (EC), India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Mexico
Australia's submissions and statements to the panel, and the panel's report,
are available at http://18.104.22.168/trade/negotiations/disputes/wto_disputes-US_AD.html
European Communities Export Subsidies on Sugar Request for Consultations
by Australia (WT/DS/265)
On Friday 27 October 2002, Australia and Brazil (WT/DS266) lodged separate
requests for consultations with the EC over its sugar regime. The consultations
will be held on 21-22 November 2002 in Geneva. Australia and Brazil are
both arguing that the EC has exceeded its WTO export subsidies commitments.
Australia and Brazil are also alleging that the EC has breached obligations
in regard to National Treatment. The EC has accepted Australia's request
to join Brazil's consultations. Requests were also made by 14 ACP countries
to join the consultations and these have been accepted by the EC. The Minister
for Trade, Mr Vaile, has issued a press release on Australia's request for
consultations. This can be found at:
The actions underway do not challenge the preferential sugar imports granted
by the EC to ACP/India. Oxfam has come out in support of Australia and Brazil's
cases, criticising the impact of the EC's policies on developing countries.
Oxfam's press release can be found at www.oxfam.co.uk. Mr Vaile's press release on
this issue can be found at: http://www.trademinister.gov.au/releases/2002/mvt125_02.html
A copy of Australia's request for consultations can be found by entering
the document number (WT/DS265) in the search function on the WTO web-site,
which can be found at http://docsonline.wto.org/gen_search.asp.
Disputes Involving Australia as a Third Party (9)
Mexico Measures Affecting Telecommunications Services (WT/DS204)
Australia's Third Party submission is due by 14 November. The US has alleged
that Mexico has failed to implement its GATS commitments for the cross-border
supply of basic telecommunications services. It alleges that certain measures
largely embodied in Mexico's International Long Distance Rules breach Sections
1 and 2 of the basic telecommunications Reference Paper incorporated into
Mexico's Schedule of Commitments, Section 5 of the GATS Annex on Telecommunications
and GATS Article XVII.
Australia, Brazil, Canada, Cuba, the EC, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Japan
and Nicaragua are third parties to this dispute.
Chile: Price Brand System and Safeguard Measures Relating to Certain
Agricultural Products (WT/DS207)
On 23 October 2002 the Dispute Settlement Body adopted the Appellate Body's
report from 23 September. The Appellate Body , upheld the panel's 3 May
2002 finding that Chile's price band system (PBS) applying to certain agricultural
products was inconsistent with Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.
The Appellate Body reversed the panel's finding that the duties resulting
from the PBS were inconsistent with the second sentence of Art II: 1(b)
of GATT 1994 on the basis that the panel had acted inconsistently with Art
11 of the DSU as it was "not part of the matters before the panel". Chile
had thereby been denied due process of a fair right of response. The Appellate
Body also decided it was not necessary to make a separate finding on whether
the PBS also results in a violation of the first sentence of Art II: 1(b)
of GATT 1994 in light of its finding of inconsistency with the Agricultural
Agreement Art 4.2.
European Communities (EC): Measures Affecting Meat and Meat Products
No new developments. The EC is still facing WTO authorised retaliation
by the U.S and Canada because of its failure to implement within a reasonable
period of time. It was earlier reported that the U.S and the EC were engaged
in discussions on a compensation arrangement. Australia has registered
its expectation that any compensation will be applied on a non-discriminatory
basis. The rights of third parties form part of Australia's proposal to
the Doha round negotiation on the review of the Dispute Settlement Understanding
Canada: Measures Affecting the Importation of Milk and the Exportation
of Dairy Products (WT/DS103 and WT/DS113)
On 23 September Canada filed its notice of appeal against the 26 July 2002
Article 21.5 Panel report, which upheld the joint U.S. NZ complaint against
Canadian dairy export subsidies. Third party submissions are due on 18
October and the oral hearing is to be held on 31 October. The Appellate
Body is scheduled to report on 23 December 2002.
On 26 July the Panel released its finding that, through its CEM scheme
and the continued operation of Special Milk Class 5(d), Canada 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) in excess
of its quantity commitment levels specified in its Schedule for exports
of cheese and "other dairy products". Alternatively, the Panel found that
the CEM scheme was inconsistent with Article 10.1 of the Agreement on Agriculture,
and therefore that Canada acted inconsistently with its obligations under
Article 8 of this Agreement.
United States: Section 110(5) Copyright Act ("Homestyle" exemption)
No new developments. At the DSB meeting on 29 July, the U.S confirmed
that in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU an additional status report
in this dispute was provided on 18 July 2002 advising that the US Administration
continues to engage the US Congress with a view to concluding a mutually
acceptable resolution of the dispute.
The EC and US sought arbitration under Article 25 of the DSU to determine
the level of nullification or impairment of benefits to the EC as a result
of the operation of section 110(5)(B) of the US Copyright Act. The arbitrator
assessed the level of nullification and impairment at US$1.1 million per
United States: Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Circular
Welded Carbon Quality Line Pipe from Korea (WT/DS202)
No new developments. On 26 July, the WTO issued the arbitrator's report
regarding the compliance period in this matter. It was not necessary for
the arbitrator to issue an award in this arbitration given that the parties
agreed that the reasonable period of time (RPT) for the U.S. to implement
the recommendations and rulings of the DSB shall expire on 1 September 2002.
The agreement on the RPT between the parties was circulated on 31 July.
The Appellate Body largely found in favour of Korea's challenge to the
February 2000 U.S line pipe safeguard. Since the adoption of the Report,
pursuant to Article 21.3(b) of the DSU, Korea and the U.S have conducted
discussions to reach agreement on a "reasonable period of time" for U.S
implementation of the DSB report.
United States: Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations"
No new developments. Following the 30 August 2002 ruling that the EU has
the legal right to apply countermeasures to the value of US$4 billion, the
EC released its draft list of products potentially subject to retaliation
on 13 September. The list will be open for public consultation for two
The WTO ruled had ruled on 14 January 2002 against the US revised Foreign
Sales Corporations (FSC) scheme. This follows an earlier WTO ruling which
upheld the EU's complaint against the original scheme as providing prohibited
export subsidies to US companies in the form of tax exemptions against US
Canada: Export Credits and Loans Guarantees for Regional Aircraft
No new developments. Brazil has indicated its intention to seek WTO authorisation
for countermeasures arising from disagreement about what was needed to complete
implementation. Brazil commented that Canada had failed to implement DSB
rulings to withdraw the subsidy within 90 days (which expired on 20 May
2002). At the DSB meeting on 24 June, Brazil made a retaliation request
to take appropriate countermeasures in the amount of US$3.36 billion. Canada
requested, and the DSB agreed, that Brazil's retaliation request be referred
to arbitration under Article 22.6.
Japan: Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples (WT/DS245)
Australia's third party submission was submitted on 14 October. Australia's
oral submission to the panel was made on 22 October. The panel timetable
provides for the interim report to be issue on 3 February 2003 and the final
report to be circulated on 4 April 2003. Australia's
third party executive summary submission.
The Japanese quarantine measures complained of by the U.S. include the
prohibition of imported apples from orchards where fire blight is detected
(or if it is detected within a 500 metre buffer zone), a requirement for
three orchard inspections a year and post-harvest treatment of exported
apples with chlorine. The U.S argues that these measures are inconsistent
with Japan's obligations under Article XI of GATT 1994, the SPS Agreement
and Article 14 of the Agreement on Agriculture. The U.S has also claimed
non-violation. A Panel was established at the 3 June DSB meeting on request
by U.S. Australia reserved its third party rights. Brazil, Taiwan, New
Zealand and the EC also reserved third party rights.
Disputes in which Australia has a Policy or Economic Interest (11)
European Communities: Measure Affecting Imports of Wine (WT/DS263/1)
No new developments. Argentina has requested dispute settlement consultations
with the EC in relation to the EC's requirements concerning wine acidification
processes. Argentina claims EC regulations and measures are inconsistent
with Articles 2 and 12 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade;
Articles I.1 and III.4 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT
1994); and Article XVI.4 of the WTO Agreement.
Japan: Measures Affecting Agricultural Products ("Varietal testing")
No new developments. Japan reached an agreement with the U.S 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.
United States: Section 129(c)(1) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act
The Panel report on section 129(C)(1) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act
was adopted at the DSB meeting of 30 August.
The Panel issued its report on 15 July 2002. The Panel found that Canada
had failed to establish that the U.S. statute was inconsistent with provisions
of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing
Measures, Article VI of GATT 1994 and the WTO Agreement, which Canada had
claimed mandates a violation of these agreements. Canada argued that irrespective
of whether duty assessments in anti-dumping and subsidy cases are approached
differently under a prospective or retrospective duty assessment system,
where a Member has agreed to implement an adverse DSB ruling, it must make
all subsequent substantive duty determinations in accordance with that ruling
following the expiration of the reasonable period of time.
United States: Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act (WT/DS176)
No new developments. The U.S and the EC have reached a mutual agreement
on the reasonable period of time for the U.S to implement the recommendations
and rulings of the DSB in this dispute. The Panel and Appellate Body Reports
adopted at the 1 February DSB meeting found that portions of the U.S legislation
were inconsistent with U.S obligations under the WTO Agreement. In the
light of these findings, which call for legislative action by the U.S Congress,
the U.S and the EC have agreed that the reasonable period of time will expire
on 31 December 2002, or on the date on which the current session of the
U.S Congress adjourns, whichever is later, and in no event later than 3
January 2003. The most recent Status Report lodged by the US notes that
the United States Administration has held consultations with the US Congress
concerning appropriate statutory measures and continues to work with the
Congress on resolving the dispute.
The Section 211 law is aimed at preventing foreign companies from registering
trademarks that were used in connection with property confiscated by Cuba
EC: Generalized System of Preferences (WT/DS242)
No new developments. Thailand has requested consultations with the EC
under Article XXIII of GATT 1994 in respect of measures under the EC's 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 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
EC: Conditions for the Granting of Tariff Preferences to Developing
No new developments. India has requested consultations with the EC on
similar issues to Thailand's request above. India has cited Article I.1
of GATT 1994 (Most-Favoured-Nation Treatment) and the Enabling Clause as
the legal basis for its concerns with regard to tariff preferences to selected
countries under special arrangements for combating drug production and trafficking,
and tariff preferences accorded under special incentive arrangements related
to EC-determined standards on the protection of labour rights and the environment.
This dispute raises similar systemic issues for Australia as EC: Generalized
System of Preferences (above).
United States: Equalizing Excise Tax Imposed by Florida on Processed
Orange and Grapefruit Products (WT/DS250)
At the Dispute Settlement Body meeting on the 1 October a panel was established,
following Brazil's second request, regarding US measures on processed orange
and grapefruit products.
Brazil claims that the exemption from this tax of products produced in
whole or in part from citrus fruit grown within the US treats imported products
less favourably than domestic products and is in violation of national treatment
obligations under Article III.2 of GATT 1994. Brazil also makes other national
treatment violation claims, including that the use of the proceeds of the
tax to advertise and promote Florida grown citrus and citrus products with
no promotion of imported citrus products violates Article III.4 and III.1
of GATT 1994.
A US judicial decision recently overturned the way in which the excise
was applied, ruling that it should be payable by all juices in Florida.
U.S States previously exempt from paying the tax are now objecting to paying
a tax which is used exclusively to promote Florida juice.
US: Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain Steel Products
(WT/DS248, WT/DS249, WT/DS251, WT/DS252, WT/DS253, WT/DS254, WT/DS258, WT/DS259)
No new developments. The eight complainants (Brazil, China, the European
Communities, Japan Korea, New Zealand, Norway and Switzerland ) argue that
the definitive safeguard measures imposed by the U.S in the form of an increase
in duties on imports of certain flat steel, hot-rolled bar, cold-finished
bar, rebar, certain welded tubular products, carbon and alloy fittings,
stainless steel bar, stainless steel rod, tin mill products and stainless
steel wire and in the form of a tariff rate quota on imports of slabs (all
effective as of 20 March 2002) are inconsistent with U.S obligations under
the GATT 1994 and the Agreement on Safeguards.
Turkey Import Ban on Pet Food from Hungary (WT/DS256)
No new developments. Hungary has requested consultations with Turkey over
its ban on the importation of pet food from any European country. Turkey
has claimed that the ban is necessary to protect it from BSE. Brazil has
said that the pet food is not made from ruminants and is for cats and dogs,
the ban is unscientific and inconsistent with the WTO. Specifically, Article
XI of GATT 1994, Articles 2.2, 2.3, 5.1, 5.2, 5.6, 6.1, 6.2 and 7 and Annex
B of the SPS Agreement and Article 14 of the Agreement on Agriculture.
Peru Certain Taxes on Agricultural Products (WT/DS255)
No new developments. Chile has sought consultations with Peru on Peruvian
law 27.614 which Chile considers may be in breach of WTO National Treatment
provisions. Chile has identified fresh fruit, vegetables, fish, milk, tea
and other "natural" products as being affected by the tax treatment. The
U.S requested intervention as a third party.
At the 24 June DSB meeting, Peru exercised its right to block establishment
of a Panel requested by Chile (However, a Panel would be automatically established
at the second request). Although it was expected that Chile would request
Panel establishment at the DSB meeting on 29 July this item was withdrawn
by Chile prior to adoption of the Agenda for this meeting (see report on
DSB meetings below).
European Communities - Trade Description of Sardines (WT/DS231)
In this dispute, Peru challenged an EC regulation which provided that only
products prepared from fish of the species Sardina pilchardus (found
mainly around the coasts of the Eastern North Atlantic, in the Mediterranean
Sea and in the Black Sea) could be marketed as preserved "sardines". Peru
claimed the measure was not based on the naming standard set out in a relevant
Codex standard and was therefore inconsistent with Article 2.4 of the TBT
This was the first case in which findings were made pursuant to the TBT
Agreement. The Appellate Body upheld the Panel's findings that the EC Regulation
was a "technical regulation" under the TBT Agreement,
that Article 2.4 of the TBT Agreement applied to measures
that were adopted before 1 January 1995 but which have not "ceased
to exist", and, that Article 2.4 of the TBT Agreement
applied to existing technical regulations, including the EC Regulation.
The Appellate Body also upheld the Panel's finding that Codex Stan 94
was a "relevant international standard" under Article 2.4
of the TBT Agreement and that Codex Stan 94 was not
used "as a basis for" the EC Regulation within the meaning
of Article 2.4 of the TBT Agreement.
The Appellate Body reversed the Panel's finding that , under the second
part of Article 2.4 of the TBT Agreement, the burden
of proof rests with the European Communities to demonstrate that
Codex Stan 94 is an "ineffective or inappropriate means for
the fulfilment of the legitimate objectives pursued" by the European
Communities through the EC Regulation Instead, it was found that the
burden of proof rests with Peru to demonstrate that Codex Stan 94
was an effective and appropriate means to fulfil those "legitimate
objectives". In this dispute, Peru was found to have adduced sufficient
evidence and legal arguments to satisfy this burden of proof.
As a separate procedural issue, the Appellate Body also found that the
amicus brief submitted by a WTO member, which did not have third party status,
Meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body: September 2002
Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) meetings were held on 1 October and 23 October.
The next regular DSB meeting is scheduled for 1 November.
Australia uses DSB meetings to monitor progress and to register its views
on disputes of interest. The agenda of the August DSB meeting was as follows:
DSB Meeting 1 October 2002
Implementation Status Report
United States: Section 110(5) Copyright
The U.S. confirmed that in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU
United States: Anti-Dumping Act
The U.S confirmed that in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU an
United States: Section 211 Omnibus
The U.S confirmed that in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU a
United States: Anti-Dumping Measures on Hot Rolled Steel
The U.S confirmed that in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU a
United States: Final Countervailing
Canada made its second request for the establishment of a panel. Canada
United States: Equalizing Excise
Brazil made its second request for establishment of a panel. Brazil
Egypt - Definitive anti-dumping
The panel report was not appealed and accordingly adopted by the DSB.
DSB Meeting 23 October 2002
Egypt - Definitive anti-dumping
Egypt said it required a reasonable period of time for implementation.
Appellate Body Report Adopted
Chile- Price Brand System and Safeguard
The Appellate Body report was adopted. Chile's price band system applying
European Communities Trade Description
The DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report as modified
This publication is intended to provide a general update and
the information within it should not be relied on as complete
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
For more general information relating to the Doha
Round of Trade negotiations, see the WTO
Doha Round Bulletin.