RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/DSB/M/139
5 February 2003
(03-0761)
Dispute Settlement Body
19 December 2002
MINUTES OF MEETING
Held in the Centre William Rappard
on 19 December 2002
Chairman:  Mr. Carlos Pérez del Castillo (Uruguay)
Subjects discussed: Page
1. Surveillance of implementation of recommendations adopted by the DSB.........................2
(a) United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act:  Status report by the United
States......................................................................................................................... ..................2
(b) United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916:  Status report by the United States.......................3
(c) United States – Section 211 Omnibus Approp riations Act of 1998:  Status report by
the United States .............................................................................................................. ...........3
(d) United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from
Japan:  Status report by the United States...................................................................................4
2. United States – Final dumping determination on softwood lumber from Canada.............5
(a) Request for the establishm ent of a panel by Canada ..................................................................5
3. European Communities – Conditions for the granting of tariff preferences to
developing countries ........................................................................................................... ......6
(a) Request for the establishm ent of a panel by India ......................................................................6
4. United States – Countervailing duties on certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel
flat products from Germany....................................................................................................7
(a) Report of the Appellate Body and Report of the Panel...............................................................7
5. Additional Procedures for Consultations Between the Chairperson of the DSB
and WTO Members in Relation to Amendm ents to the Working Procedures for
Appellate Review............................................................................................................... ........9
(a) Proposal by the Chairman.................................................................................................... .......9
6. Proposed nominations for the indicative list of governmental and
non-governmental panelists ...................................................................................................10
7. Amendments to the Working Procedures for Appellate Review........................................10
(a) Statement by  the Chairman................................................................................................... ....10WT/DSB/M/139
Page 2
1. Surveillance of implementation of recommendations adopted by the DSB
(a) United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copy right Act:  Status report by the United States
(b) United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916:  Status report by the United States
(c) United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropri ations Act of 1998:  Status report by the
United States
(d) United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan:
Status report by the United States
1. The Chairman recalled that Article 21.6 of the DSU required that "unless the DSB decides
otherwise, the issue of implementation of the recommendations or rulings shall be placed on the
agenda of the DSB meeting after six months following the date of establishment of the reasonable
period of time pursuant to paragraph 3 and shall remain on the DSB's agenda until the issue is
resolved".  He  proposed that the four sub-items to which he had just referred be considered
separately.
(a) United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyri ght Act:  Status report by the United States
(WT/DS160/18/Add.10)
2. The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS160/18/Add.10 which contained the status
report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in the
case concerning Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act.
3. The representative of the United States said that her country had provided an additional status
report in this dispute on 6 December 2002, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  As noted in
that report, the United States and the EC had been seeking a positive and mutually acceptable
resolution of the dispute.  The United States continued to work towards a mutually acceptable
arrangement consistent with WTO rules.  Members might be aware that the US Congress had not beenin session since the 28 November DSB meeting at wh ich the previous status report had been presented
by the United States.  The US administration would continue to engage the US Congress on this issue
when it reconvened early next year.
4. The representative of the European Communities said that 28 months had passed after the
adoption of the Panel Report on Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act.  While the EC appreciated
the efforts of the US administration, it was disappointed by the lack of action of the United States thus
far.  The EC urged, once again, the United States to take rapid and concrete action to settle thisdispute and to comply with the DSB's recommendations.  He reiterated the EC's request for more
detailed information on the legislative steps that th e United States intended to take in order to bring
the Copyright Act into compliance with the TRIPS Agreement.
5. The representative of Australia said that his country had previously registered its continued
commercial and systemic interests in this matter.  He, therefore, referred delegations to previous
statements made by Australia in this regard.
6. The DSB took note of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular
meeting.WT/DSB/M/139
Page 3
(b) United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916:  Status report by the United States
(WT/DS136/14/Add.10 - WT/DS162/17/Add.10)
7. The Chairman drew attention to docume nt WT/DS136/14/Add.10 – WT/DS162/17/Add.10
which contained the status report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's
recommendations in the case concerning the US Anti-Dumping Act of 1916.
8. The representative of the United States said that her country had provided an additional status
report in this dispute on 6 December 2002, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  The US
administration would continue to work with the US  Congress when it convened early next year to
achieve further progress in resolving this dispute with the EC and Japan.
9. The representative of the European Communities said that it was regrettable that the EC had
to make another repetitive statement regarding this ma tter.  He then recalled the main highlights of the
statement made by the EC at the previous regular DSB meeting.  First, a repeal of the 1916 Act witheffects to future cases only could not be considered a satisfactory solution of this dispute and would
only serve to prolong the dispute.  Second, the EC expected that the new Congress would treat the
repeal of the 1916 Act and the termination of ongoing cases as first priority.  The EC noted the
commitment of the US administration to continue to work with the US Congress when resumed its
work so as to solve this dispute as soon as possible.  The EC hoped that concrete actions would be putin place.
10. The representative of Japan said that, like the EC, her delegation also regretted that repetitive
statements had to be made on this matter.  Japan expressed its deep regret once again that the bills
repealing the 1916 Act had not passed the US Congress during the last session.  Japan's concern was
warranted and serious, as the prolonged non-compliance by the United States was affecting theconfidence in the dispute settlement system and was causing real damage to the relevant Japanese
companies.  Japan reiterated that the United Stat es had to implement the DSB's recommendations and
rulings, at the earliest possible time, by repealin g the WTO-inconsistent Act and by terminating any
proceedings thereunder.
11. The DSB took note of the statements and agreed
 to revert to this matter at its next regular
meeting.
(c) United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropriat ions Act of 1998:  Status report by the
United States (WT/DS176/11/Add.3)
12. The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS176/11/Add.3 which contained the status
report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in the
case concerning US Section 211 Om nibus Appropriations Act of 1998.
13. The representative of the United States said that her country had provided a status report in
this dispute on 6 December 2002, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  As indicated
previously, the new US Congress would convene ea rly next year.  The US administration would
continue to engage the US Congress on this issue when it resumed work.
14. The representative of the European Communities said that the EC would like to restate its
position expressed at the previous regular DSB meetings on the legal status of abandoned trademarks
under Section 211.  To find Section 211 consistent with the TRIPS Agreement, the Panel had relied
on the US representation that this provision did not apply in the particular circumstances where a
trademark had been legally abandoned.  However, US courts had not interpreted Section 211 in
conformity with these affirmations.  Therefore, it should be clarified that Section 211 did not apply to
a new trademark after a former trademark – to which Section 211 might have applied – had beenabandoned.  In light of the forthcoming deadline fo r compliance, the EC wished to know what the USWT/DSB/M/139
Page 4
administration intended to do.  The EC remained ope n to all solutions that could favour compliance
and hoped that a satisfactory solution would be reached.
15. The representative of Cuba expressed her delegation's deep regret at the US status report
which revealed that no action had been taken to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings
concerning Section 211 of the Omnibus Appropriat ions Act of 1998.  She noted that the reasonable
period of time for implementation in this case would expire in the next few days.  At the present
meeting, her delegation wished to reaffirm the statement made by Cuba at the 1 February 2002 DSB
meeting1 and to draw attention to some important points in this regard.  She recalled that Section 211
was a result of a suit brought before the US courts concerning the usurpation of the right of use of the
Cuban rum trademark "Havana Club" by a competitor  on the international market.  Although US law
at the beginning of the proceedings had favoured Cuban interests, considerable pressure from that
competitor, which although based in the Bahamas had most of its interests in the United States, hadled to the adoption of Section 211 by the US Congre ss, thereby producing a ruling in favour of the
interests of the company.  The Appellate Body, which had examined the case, had found that this law
violated the principle of national treatment since the limitations which it established were applicable
only to the successors-in-interest of Cuban nationals who were not US nationals, and therefore applied
in a discriminatory manner only to Cuban owners re siding in Cuba or a country other than the United
States, but not to US owners or Cubans residing in the United States.  Likewise, the Appellate Body
had found that Section 211 violated the most-favoured-nation treatment principle by establishing in a
discriminatory manner that only Cuban nationals were subject to this provision whereas the nationals
of any country other than Cuba or the United States were not.  Cuba maintained that Section 211 of
the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998 should be repealed.  Its incompatibility with UScommitments in the area of intellectual property rights had been demonstrated by the Appellate Body.
She noted that the United States had always attached particular importance to and established itself as
a strong advocate of intellectual property issues, repeatedly demanding that the rules of the TRIPS
Agreement be strictly observed.  Therefore, the United States should be equally self-demanding and
should comply with the DSB's recommendations and ru lings in this regard.  In this respect, the
abrogation of the law at issue would be the best solution from both a legal and an ethical point of
view.
16. The DSB took note of the statements and agreed
 to revert to this matter at its next regular
meeting.
(d) United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan:
Status report by the Unit ed States (WT/DS184/15/Add.3)
17. The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DS184/15/Add.3 which contained the status
report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in the
case concerning US anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan.
18. The representative of the United States said that her country had provided a status report in
this dispute on 6 December 2002, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU, in which it was
reporting that it had implemented the DSB's recommendations and rulings with respect to thecalculation of anti-dumping margins in the hot-rolled steel anti-dumping investigation.  In that status
report, the United States also noted that, on 5 December 2002, the DSB had approved an extension of
the reasonable period of time in this dispute until 31 December 2003, or until the end of the first
session of the next Congress, whichever would be earlier.  The US administration would continue to
consult and to work with the US Congress on resolving the dispute in a mutually satisfactory manner.
19. The representative of Japan recalled that the reasonable period of time for implementation in
this case had been extended at the 5 December DSB meeting until the end of the first session of the
                                                     
1 WT/DSB/M/119.WT/DSB/M/139
Page 5
next US Congress or 31 December 2003, whichever would be earlier.  This extension was granted
only to facilitate the earliest compliance by the United States with the DSB's recommendations and
rulings and not to provide the United States with a grace period to sit back.  Japan expected the United
States to do its utmost to ensure prompt compliance, including introducing and passing the necessary
legislation in the US Congress as soon as the 108t h session opened next year, while closely consulting
with Japan on the status and contents of implementation.  Japan looked forward to full
implementation by the United States early next year.
20. The DSB took note of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular
meeting.
2. United States – Final dumping determination on softwood lumber from Canada
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by Canada (WT/DS264/2)
21. The Chairman drew attention to the communi cation from Canada contained in document
WT/DS264/2.
22. The representative of Canada said that, once again, his country had been forced to bring a
softwood lumber complaint before the DSB.  He recalled that earlier complaints related to the
countervailing duties imposed by the United States.  This case related to the anti-dumping duties.
However, these measures had one thing in common;   i.e. they were all WTO-inconsistent.  The
softwood lumber industry was of vital importance to the Canadian economy.  Canada would insist,
both before the DSB and before the Panel, that the United States live up to its binding obligations.
Turning to the specifics of this request, he recalled that on 13 September 2002, Canada had requested
consultations with the United States concerning the final affirmative determination of sales at less
than fair value with respect to certain softwood lumber products from Canada announced by the USDepartment of Commerce on 21 March 2002.  Consultations had been held on 11 October 2002.
Unfortunately, these consultations had failed to resolve the dispute.  Therefore, on 6 December 2002,
Canada had requested that a panel be established at the present meeting.  As set out in this request, the
measures at issue included the initiation of the investigation, the conduct of the investigation, the
Final Determination and the resulting Anti-Dumping Order on Softwood Lumber from Canada.Canada considered that these measures, and in particular the determinations made and methodologies
adopted therein by the US Department of Commer ce, violated the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the
GATT 1994 for, among others, the following reasons:  the US Department of Commerce had failed to
establish a clear, definitive and proper product scope for investigation, and had improperly initiated
and pursued the investigation with regard to certain products.  The application filed by the US
domestic industry and the subsequent initiation of the investigation by the US Department of
Commerce did not comply with Article 5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  In this connection, hewished to refer to the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 known as the "Byrd
Amendment".  By requiring that a member of the US industry support the application as a condition
of receiving payments under this Act, domestic industry support for the dumping application had
never been objectively established.  Furthermore,  the US Department of Commerce had improperly
applied a number of methodologies based on improper and unfair comparisons between the exportprice and the normal value, resulting in artificial and/or inflated margins of dumping.  Consequently,
and in accordance with the relevant provisions of the DSU, the GATT 1994 and the Anti-Dumping
Agreement, Canada was requesting the establishment of a panel to consider these matters.
23. The representative of the United States said that her country regretted that Canada had chosen
to request the establishment of a panel.  As a substantive matter, the United States believed that
Canada's claims lacked merit.  The anti-dumping in vestigation at issue had properly been initiated and
conducted in accordance with applicable WTO rules.  The United States urged Canada to reconsider
its position.  The United States, therefore, believed that it would be premature to establish a panel at
this stage and thus was not in a position to accept establishment of a panel at the present meeting.WT/DSB/M/139
Page 6
24. The DSB took note of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter.
3. European Communities – Conditions for the granting of tariff preferences to developing
countries
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by India (WT/DS246/4)
25. The Chairman drew attention to the communication from India contained in document
WT/DS246/4.
26. The representative of India said that the decision to pursue this dispute had been particularly
difficult for his country given that developing countries, including India, were beneficiaries of the
EC's generalized system of preferences (GSP) regime.  He said that, at first glance, it might seem as if
India was seeking to put into doubt the legitimacy of a system under which developing countries
could obtain benefits.  He, therefore, invited other Members to assess this matter beyond that first
glance.  India wished to assure developing-country Members that it had initiated this dispute in thesincere belief that it would serve the long-term systemic  interest of many developing countries.  At the
heart of the matter was the unconditional most-favoured-nation (MFN) treatment obligation agreed to
by all Members under the GATT 1994, a cornerstone of the rules-based multilateral trading system.
He emphasized the word "unconditional".  In India's view, the word "unconditional" meant that
Members had established a rules-based multilateral trading system that preserved their sovereigntyand enabled them to adopt and implement policies to respond to the unique needs of its constituents,
given the equally unique history and culture of each Member.  As conceived, the GSP under the
Enabling Clause had been established as an exception to the MFN obligation, but only to the extent
that it allowed discrimination in favour of developing countries "to facilitate and promote the trade of
developing countries".  In imposing the condition that any GSP scheme had to be "generalized, non-reciprocal, non-discriminatory", the Enabling Clause merely elaborated on the word "unconditional".
Thus, the imposition of any condition as a prerequisite for the availment of benefits under any GSP
scheme, particularly a condition unrelated to facilitating and promoting the trade of developing
countries in general, was in violation of the MFN treatment obligation and the Enabling Clause.  If
tolerated, this would lead to the erosion of the sovereign ability of each developing country to adoptand implement policies to respond to the unique needs of its constituents.  Rather, those policy
choices would be made by developed countries granting GSP preferences subject to conditions.
Selective trade preferences could and often did result in adverse effects on trade of other developing
countries.
27. He said that India had taken up these issues bilaterally with the EC and also during its
consultations under the DSU.  His country had engaged in discussions with the EC hoping that some
sensitivity would be shown regarding the advers e impact on India of the concessions extended to
certain countries under the GSP regime.  India had waited patiently for nearly nine months for the EC
to address its concerns.  Unfortunately, the response received from the EC had not addressed India's
concerns.  As no mutually satisfactory solution could be arrived at, India was left with no option other
than seeking the establishment of a panel.  India hoped that Members would appreciate its constraints
and the underlying reasons, which had forced India to take such a step, albeit with utmost reluctance.While India was requesting that a panel be established regarding this dispute, it hoped that, even at
this late stage, the EC would take concrete steps to ensure that India's legitimate concerns were
redressed.
28. The representative of the European Communities said that the EC wished to express its deep
regret and surprise over India's request for the establishment of a panel at a time when both parties
were engaged in useful and good faith consultations.  The EC was also deeply disappointed that India
had chosen to ignore that the EC's GSP scheme was an autonomous regime granted on a
non-reciprocal, generalised and non-discriminatory ba sis.  Moreover, the scheme of which India was
one of the beneficiaries.  The EC was totally convinced of the GATT/WTO-consistency of its GSPWT/DSB/M/139
Page 7
scheme, including the special incentive arrangements re ferred to by India.  The EC was acting in full
conformity with its GATT/WTO commitments including the prescriptions of the Enabling Clause.
The EC urged India to reflect very carefully once more upon its course of action which might hamper
efforts by the EC and other Members to address the developmental needs of developing countries
through the GSP.  Nevertheless, if India remained committed to pursuing this regrettable action, theEC, whilst opposing the establishment of a panel at the present meeting, would vigorously defend its
interests and those of all GSP beneficiary countries in the framework of the WTO dispute settlement
system.
29. The representative of Colombia, speaking on behalf of the member countries of the
ANDEAN Community (Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela and Colombia) expressed concern over
India's decision to request the establishment of a panel in relation to the alleged inconsistency of the
EC's scheme of generalized tariff preferences for a group of countries specified in Council Regulation(EC) No. 2501 of 2001.  This particular situation had been set out to senior Indian officials at
meetings of a number of bodies both in Geneva and at the Ministerial level.  He noted that India had
stated that its concerns were primarily trade-related and had been triggered by the recent extension of
the coverage of the scheme.  He reiterated that the issue raised by India was highly political.  In this
respect, the above-mentioned countries called upon India to reconsider the implications of requestinga ruling by the WTO decision-making bodies on unilateral preferences accorded by developed
countries.  Complex discussions on these issues had taken place in other WTO bodies.  The lack of
consensus thereon and the enormous economic and political implications of a ruling on this matter
would have to be taken into consideration, in particular in the present circumstances.  In this regard,
he noted that the anti-drug campaign had a very high cost for the economies of the countries inquestion entailing extra costs relating to security and institutional deterioration and, with the large
number of victims of the violence caused by drug trafficking, had undermined the advancement of
peoples.  The preferential access granted by the EC merely facilitated trade, responded to trade and
development needs and was based on the principle of shared responsibility endorsed by all those who
undertook to combat the international scourge of drug trafficking.  In the light of the aboveconsiderations, the countries in question hoped that the opportunity afforded by the decision at the
present meeting would be seized and that, as a result, major progress would be made in bilateral
discussions between India and the EC, which would av oid the need to establish a panel on this matter.
Finally, the countries at issue wished to reiterate their hope that the Madrid Summit agreements aimed
at deepening trade relations in the medium term would be shortly implemented.
30. The DSB took note of the statements and agreed
 to revert to this matter.
4. United States – Countervailing duties on certain corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat
products from Germany
(a) Report of the Appellate Body (WT/DS213/AB/ R and Corr.1) and Report of the Panel
(WT/DS213/R)
31. The Chairman drew attention to the communi cation from the Appellate Body contained in
document WT/DS213/8 transmitting the Appellate Body Report on "United States – Countervailing
Duties on Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Germany", which had been
circulated in document WT/DS213/AB/R and Corr.1, in accordance with Article 17.5 of the DSU.  He
wished to remind delegations that in accordance with the Decision on Procedures for the Circulation
and Derestriction of WTO Documents contained in document WT/L/452, the Appellate Body Report
and the Panel Report had been circulated as unrestricted documents.  As Members were aware,Article 17.14 of the DSU required that:  "An Appellate Body report shall be adopted by the DSB and
unconditionally accepted by the parties to the dispute unless the DSB decides by consensus not to
adopt the Appellate Body report within 30 days following its circulation to Members.  This adoption
procedure is without prejudice to the right of Members to express their views on an Appellate Body
report".WT/DSB/M/139
Page 8
32. The representative of the United States said her country first wished to thank the members of
the Appellate Body and the Appellate Body Secretariat, as well as the members of the Panel and the
WTO Secretariat, for their hard work in producing these Reports.  There were many noteworthy
aspects of the Appellate Body Report that deserved mention, but at the present meeting, her
delegation would confine itself to a few.  First, and most important, was that the Appellate BodyReport reaffirmed that the purpose of WTO dispute settlement was to enforce existing obligations,
and not to create them.  While this principle was reflected in various portions of the WTO Agreement
and the DSU, the EC in this dispute had sought to depart from it.  The Appellate Body's reaffirmation
of this principle was especially timely.  She noted that Members had embarked upon the difficult task
of completing the Doha Round of negotiations.  Negotiators and treaty drafters could perform their
tasks with renewed confidence that the words they wrote would not be rewritten years after the fact in
WTO dispute settlement proceedings.
33. A second important aspect of the Appellate Body Report was that it reaffirmed the
importance of a treaty's text under the customary rules of treaty interpretation.  On the de minimis
issue, the Panel majority essentially used a purported "object and purpose" to trump the text of
Article 21.3 of the Subsidies Agreement, and the Appellate Body had properly reversed the Panel's
findings.  The Appellate Body's analysis on this and other issues was a model of how the customary
rules of treaty interpretation should be applied.  The final significant aspect of the Appellate Body
Report which was noted at the present meeting was that the Report clarified that in situations where a
complaining  party challenged the WTO-consistency of another Member's law "as such", the burden
was on the complaining party to demonstrate that such a law mandated WTO-inconsistent action or
precluded WTO-consistent action.  As stated by th e Appellate Body in paragraph 157 of its Report, "a
responding Member's law will be treated as WTO- consistent  until proven otherwise".  Because certain
prior reports were unclear as to which party had the burden of proof with respect to the
"mandatory/discretionary doctrine", this aspect of the Report was a particularly welcome clarification.
The United States was pleased to support the adoption of the Appellate Body Report and the Panel
Report, as modified by the Appellate Body Report.
34. The representative of the European Communities said that notwithstanding the positive
outcome on the specific CDV case at issue, the EC was disappointed at the result of the Appellate
Body's review of this case.  In fact, the EC initi ated sunset reviews only when there was sufficient
evidence of injury and/or subsidization.  Equally CVD measures imposed by the EC could not
continue when subsidies fell below a 1 per cent de minimis  threshold.  The EC remained convinced
that this interpretation of the provisions of the SCM Agreement was required by the context and the
purpose of the Agreement.  Unfortunately, the Appellate Body had disagreed, and followed the morerestrictive line put forward by the United States.  In the view of the EC, however, this line would
effectively void the sunset provisions of the SCM Agreement of their practical relevance.  However,
he wished to point out that the EC was not alone in having serious reservations about the US law and
practice in the field of sunset reviews.  Japan and Argentina had recently challenged this kind of
investigation, both in the anti-dumping and in the CVD field.  Their action had been expresslysupported by several other Members during the consultations and the Panel's proceedings.  The
outcome of another ongoing case which involved Japan would help in having a more complete
judicial analysis of the obligations established by the WTO in this area.  In view of this, the issue of
the object and purpose of the SCM Agreement as applied to sunset reviews would continue to be a
subject of considerable concern in the WTO.  In concluding, he recalled that, notwithstanding thefindings on the US law, the Reports under consideration at the present meeting stated that certain
aspects of the specific sunset review at issue were inconsistent with the US obligations under the
SCM Agreement.  Accordingly, the EC expected the United States to promptly implement these
findings by lifting the WTO-incompatible duties on carbon steel from Germany.
35. The representative of Japan said that her country had participated as a third party in this
dispute.  While Japan understood that the Reports of the Appellate Body and the Panel would be
adopted by the DSB at the present meeting by negative consensus, it regretted the findings andWT/DSB/M/139
Page 9
conclusions of the Appellate Body Report.  For instance, the SCM Agreement and the Anti-Dumping
Agreement provided in the respective provisions that any countervailing duty and any anti-dumping
duty shall in principle be terminated after five year s, unless determined otherwise in a sunset review.
"Sufficient evidence" was required to justify the initiation of a sunset review, as was the case for the
original investigation.  It was Japan's view, as well as that of many other Members, that automaticself-initiation of the sunset review was inconsistent with the WTO Agreement.  Japan was quite
disappointed that the Appellate Body in this proc eeding had not agreed with its view.  Japan was
currently involved in the on-going Panel proceedings against the United States on a similar matter
concerning the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  Japan would fully avail itself of these proceedings to make
its claims and arguments accepted by the Panel so that the Panel would reach the right conclusions.
36. The representative of Argentina said that his country wished to echo the concerns expressed
by the EC and Japan regarding the findings in this case.
37. The representative of Korea said that his country also had serious concerns about the sunset
provisions in the US anti-dumping legislation, in particular the automatic initiation of sunset reviews.
In this regard, Korea wished to express its reservations about the Appellate Body's conclusions and to
echo the concerns expressed by the EC, Japan and Argentina.
38. The representative of Chile said that, like the EC, Japan, Argentina and Korea, his country
also had concerns about the way in which sunset reviews were being conducted in the United States.
For that reason, his country wished to be associated with the statements made by the EC, Japan,
Argentina and Korea.
39. The DSB took note of the statements and adopted  the Appellate Body Report in
WT/DS213/AB/R and Corr.1 and the Panel Report in  WT/DS213/R and Corr.1, as modified by the
Appellate Body Report.
5. Additional Procedures for Consultations Between the Chairperson of the DSB and
WTO Members in Relation to Amendments to the Working Procedures for Appellate
Review
(a) Proposal by the Chairman (WT/DSB/W/214)
40. The Chairman recalled that at the informal DSB meeting on 10 October 2002, delegations had
expressed a desire to have certain agreed procedures in place for the DSB Chairperson to follow when
consultations were initiated by the Appellate Body, pursuant to Article 17.9 of the DSU.  After that
meeting and in accordance with the desire of delegations, he had prepared a draft text on possible
procedures in this regard.  He had held a number of informal meetings on a possible text and had
sought guidance as to the nature of the DSB action to be taken once a consensus were to be reached
on the substance of the procedure.  As a result of these extensive consultations, at the present meetinghe wished to draw Members' attention to th e proposal contained in document WT/DSB/W/214 on
Additional Procedures for Consultations Between the Chairperson of the DSB and WTO Members in
Relation to Amendments to the Working Procedures for Appellate Review .  It was his understanding
that no delegation objected to this proposal, which had been sent by fax to Heads of Delegations on
29 November 2002 and in which he had invited delegations to make comments by 5 December 2002.Consequently, he had decided to place this matter on the agenda of the present meeting with a view to
taking a decision on it.  He then proposed that the DSB agree to the proposal on "Additional
Procedures for Consultations Between the Chairperson of the DSB and WTO Members in Relation to
Amendments to the Working Procedures for Appellate Review ", as contained in document
WT/DSB/W/214.  He added that following the deci sion at the present meeting this text would be
circulated as a DSB document in line with othe r DSB decisions such as WT/DSB/1 and WT/DSB/6.
It was his understanding that some delegations had expressed the view that it would be convenient if
all relevant decisions of the DSB were contained in one document.  He had discussed this matter withWT/DSB/M/139
Page 10
the Secretariat, which had undertaken to circulate the text of this decision together with all relevant
DSB decisions in a compilation, as was being done by other WTO bodies.  In addition, the text of this
decision would be included in the next edition of the WTO publication entitled:  "The WTO Dispute
Settlement Procedures:  A Collection of the Relevant Legal Texts", which would be issued in the near
future.
41. The DSB took note of the statement and agreed to the Chairman's proposal contained in
WT/DSB/W/214.2
6. Proposed nominations for the indicative list of governmental and non-governmental
panelists (WT/DSB/W/215 and Corr.1)
42. The Chairman drew attention to document WT/DSB/W/215 and Corr.1 which contained
additional names proposed for inclusion on the indicative list in accordance with Article 8.4 of the
DSU.  He proposed that the DSB approve the names contained in documents WT/DSB/W/215 and
Corr.1.
43. The DSB so agreed.
7. Amendments to the Working Procedures for Appellate Review
(a) Statement by the Chairman
44. The Chairman, speaking under "Other Business",  drew attention to the communication from
the Appellate Body in document WT/AB/WP/5 containing additional explanations regarding
amendments to Rules 1, 24 and 27 of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review .  He noted that
this communication was available outside the meeting room.  In that communication, the Appellate
Body had also set out proposed additional amendments to Rules 1, 24(4) and 27, together with
proposed consequential amendments to Rules 16(1), 18(5), 19 and 28, and to Annex 1.  As indicatedin that communication, the intention of the Appe llate Body was to adopt the proposed amendments
early next year, to have effect from 15 February 2003.  In the light of this, he proposed that this matter
be placed on the agenda of the regular DSB meeting scheduled for 27 January 2003 in order to enable
Members to express their views on the proposed amendments.  Furthermore, in accordance with the
Additional Procedures for the Chairman of the DSB and WTO Members in Relation to Amendmentsto the Working Procedures for Appellate Review , which had been adopted under agenda item 5 of the
present meeting, he would also send a fax to delegations regarding this matter in order to provide
them with an opportunity to comment on the proposed amendments in writing by the date of the next
regular DSB meeting scheduled for 27 January 2003.
45. The DSB took note of the statement.
__________
                                                     
2 Subsequently circulated in document WT/DSB/31.