RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE WT/DSB/M/13
13May1996
ORGANIZATION(96-1848)
DISPUTE SETTLEMENT BODY
27March 1996
MINUTES OFMEETING
Held intheCentre William Rappard
on27March 1996
Chairman: Mr.Celso Lafer (Brazil)
Subjects discussed: Page
1. United States -Measures affecting imports ofwomen 'sandgirls'wool coats 1
- Request byIndia fortheestablishment ofapanel 1
2. United States -Measures affecting imports ofwoven wool shirts andblouses 4
- Request byIndia fortheestablishment ofapanel 4
3. Turkey -Action onimports oftextiles andclothing 6
- Statement byIndia 6
4. United States -Increase intherates ofdutyoncertain products oftheEuropean
Communities (Presidential Proclamation No.5759 of24December 1987) 7
- Statement bytheEuropean Communities 7
5. Turkey- Action onimports oftextiles andclothing 8
- Statement byHong Kong 8
6. Requests tobejoined inconsultations under theDSU 9
- Announcement bytheChairman 9
1. United States -Measures affecting imports ofwomen 'sandgirls'wool coats
- Request byIndia fortheestablishment ofapanel (WT/DS32/1)
TheChairman drew attention tothecommunication from India inWT/DS32/1. Herecalled
thatincases ofdisputes initiated pursuant totheAgreement onTextiles andClothing (ATC) which
hadbeenexamined bytheTextiles Monitoring Body (TMB), butwhich remained unresolved, "either
Member maybring thematter before theDispute Settlement Body (DSB) andinvoke paragraph 2of
Article XXIII ofGATT 1994 andrelevant provisions oftheDSU"1.
1Article 8.10oftheATC.WT/DSB/M/13
Page2
Therepresentative ofIndia saidthatfulldetails concerning thismatter hadbeencirculated in
WT/DS32/1 on15March 1996. Herecalled thaton30December 1994, India hadreceived arequest
fromtheUnited States toholdconsultations under thebilateral textile agreement2onimports ofwomen 's
andgirls'wool coats (category 435). India andtheUnited States hadmetinGeneva on18-19 April
1995 todiscuss certain textile issues ofmutual interest, including theabove-mentioned request for
consultations. On18April 1995, India hadexplained thatitwaslegally unsustainable fortheUnited
States topursue consultations under thebilateral agreement, which hadterminated on31December
1994, andhadpointed totheanomalies andinconsistencies thatcould arisewithregard totheATC
iftheUnited States weretopursue itsrequest. Onthatsame date,theUnited States hadmade anew
request forconsultations under Article 6oftheATC onimports ofwomen 'sandgirls'wool coats
(category 435). Under thisnewrequest, consultations hadbeenheldon14-16 June1995. India had
pointed out,onthebasis ofthedataprovided withtherequest, thattheUnited States hadreferred to
"serious damage oractual threat thereof" toitsindustry, buthadnotclearly indicated whether ithad
determined "serious damage" or"actual threat thereof", although thestatement attached tothetext
ofthisrequest hadconsistently referred to"serious damage". India hadargued that,based onthis
data,there wasnojustification foranyaction under Article 6oftheATC. Nevertheless, on14July
1995, theUnited States hadimposed aunilateral restraint onimports ofwomen 'sandgirls'woolcoats
from India, effective retroactively from 18April 1995.
Pursuant toArticle 6.10oftheATC, theTMB hadexamined thematter on28August -
1September and12-15 September 1995, andhadfound thatserious damage hadnotbeendemonstrated.
However, itcould notreach aconsensus ontheexistence ofactual threat ofserious damage. TheTMB
hadpointed outthat,inreviewing itsfindings onthismatter theparties should bearinmind thatthe
ATC wassilent astowhether ornottherestraint could bemaintained. India hadhoped thattheTMB
findings would result inthewithdrawal oftherestraint bytheUnited States. Without prejudice to
itsrights under theWTO Agreement, India hadsentacommunication totheTMB, under Article 8.6
oftheATC, drawing itsattention tothecontinuation oftherestraint. ItheldtheviewthatArticle 6
oftheATC provided thattransitional safeguard measures could continue toexist, andbejustified,
onlysubject totheendorsement bytheTMB. Theabsence ofconsensus indicated thattheaction under
examination hadnotbeendetermined tobejustified, andtherefore wasnotvalidunder theATC. On
13-17 November, theTMB hadreverted tothismatter andhadfound thatitcould notmake any
recommendation inaddition totheconclusion reached atitsmeeting inSeptember. Furthermore, in
theabsence ofconsensus ontheexistence ofactual threat ofserious damage, theTMB could notreach
aconsensus onwhether ornottherestraint could bemaintained. Ithadconcluded thatitsreview of
thematter under therelevant provisions oftheATC wascompleted.
Thematter remained unresolved despite: (i)theconsultations heldbetween IndiaandtheUnited
States, under Article 6.7oftheATC, inApril andJune1995; (ii)itsexamination bytheTMB in
accordance withArticle 6.10oftheATC atitsmeetings inAugust andSeptember 1995; (iii)the
communicationfromIndia,underArticle8.6oftheATC,totheTMBinOctober1995,withoutprejudice
toitsrights under theWTO Agreement, regarding thecontinuation oftherestraint oncategory 435
bytheUnited States despite theabsence oftheTMB upholding thesafeguard action taken bytheUnited
States; and(iv)theTMB review andreport onthematter atitsmeeting inNovember 1995.
India considered thatallrequirements ofArticle 8.10 oftheATC fordirect recourse to
Article XXIII:2 ofGATT 1994 hadbeenmet. It,therefore, requested thatapanel beestablished at
thepresent meeting. Italsorequested thatthepanel consider andfindthat: (i)therestraint imposed
bytheUnited States, on14July1995, onimports women 'sandgirls'woolcoats (category 435)from
India, effective 18April 1995, wasinconsistent withArticles 6,8and2oftheATC; (ii)theaction
bytheUnited States toimpose therestraint onimports ofwomen 'sandgirl'swoolcoats(category 435)
2Agreement between theUnited States andIndia under theMFA.WT/DSB/M/13
Page3
from India nullified orimpaired thebenefits accruing toitunder theWTO Agreement, theGATT
1994, andinparticular theATC; (iii)theaction bytheUnited States tomaintain therestraint on
category 435wasalsounjustified inthelightoftheTMB findings thatserious damage hadnotbeen
demonstrated andtheabsence ofconsensus ontheexistence ofactual threat ofserious damage; and
(iv)theUnited States should bring themeasure intoconformity withtheATC bywithdrawing the
restraint imposed oncategory 435from India.
India hadalsorequested supplementary findings bythepanel that: (i)theabsence ofaclear
recommendation bytheTMB upholding thesafeguard action taken bytheUnited States implied that
theTMB didnotfindthesafeguard action justified andtherefore theimporting country hadalegal
obligation towithdraw therestraint; (ii)inaccordance withtheATC, inparticular itsArticle 6,the
burden ofdemonstrating serious damage oractual threat thereof laywiththeUnited States asthe
importing country, which hadtomake thisdetermination prior totheinvocation ofArticle 6ofthe
ATC; itshould benoted thatdatarequirement would bedifferent forthedetermination ofserious
damage oractual threat thereof; (iii)therewasnoprovision intheATCunder which theUnited States
astheimporting country could impose arestraint withretroactive effect. Indiarequested thatthepanel
beestablished withstandard terms ofreference inaccordance withArticle 7.1oftheDSU.
Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthat,inSeptember 1995, when theTMB hadtaken
itsdecision oncategory 435,which covered women 'sandgirls'woolcoats, hiscountry hadindicated
thatitwaswilling toreconsider itsrestraint oncategory 435depending onsubsequent market
developments.Severalmonthsago,theUnitedStateshadbecomeconvincedthattherestraintoncategory
435wasnolonger necessary. Hisauthorities hadrequested Indiatoholdconsultations onthismatter.
Ithadnotbeenpossible tofindmutually acceptable dates forthese consultations. Itwasunfortunate
thatIndia hadrequested theestablishment ofapanel before providing theUnited States withthis
opportunity toresolve theissueofitsrestraint oncategory 435. Accordingly, atthepresent meeting,
theUnited States wasnotinaposition tojoinconsensus ontheestablishment ofapanel. TheUSchief
textilenegotiatorwouldbecommunicatingdirectlytoherIndiancounterparttheUSdecisiontowithdraw
therestraint.
Therepresentative ofIndia saidthattheUnited States wasprobably referring toinformal
indications given during aSeptember TMB review thatitwould bewilling toreconsider itsrestraint
oncategory 435depending onsubsequent market developments. Hepointed outthaton7November
1995, theUnited States hadsentacommunication totheTMB inwhich ithadindicated thatithad
decided tomaintain itsrestraint ontheabove-mentioned category asprovided forinArticle 6ofthe
ATC. Hereferred tothediscrepancy between thestatement made today andthecommunication sent
totheTMB on7November andquestioned theneedfortheUnited States, ifithadbecome convinced
several months agothattherestraint oncategory 435wasnolonger necessary, toconsult withIndia
prior tothewithdrawal oftherestraint. Hewasconcerned thattheideabehind seeking bilateral
consultations before actually withdrawing therestraint might betoaskIndia tomake asignificant
concession asaquidproquoforwithdrawal oftherestraint bytheUnited States. Henoted thatthe
United States wasnotwilling toaccept theestablishment ofapanel atthepresent meeting. Therefore,
hewished torequest thataspecial meeting oftheDSBbeconvened urgently inorder toconsider this
matter.
TheDSBtooknoteofthestatements andagreed torevert tothismatter atitsnextmeeting.
DuetotheEaster holidays, themeeting would notbeconvened within fifteen daysasrequested by
theDSU buton17April 1996 intheunderstanding thatthiswould notconstitute aprecedent for
convening DSBmeetings.WT/DSB/M/13
Page4
2. United States -Measures affecting imports ofwoven wool shirts andblouses
- Request byIndia fortheestablishment ofapanel (WT/DS33/1)
TheChairman drew attention tothecommunication from India inWT/DS33/1. Ashehad
recalled under theprevious item, incases ofdisputes initiated pursuant totheAgreement onTextiles
andClothing which hadbeenexamined bytheTextiles Monitoring Body (TMB), butwhich remain
unresolved, "either Member maybring thematter before theDispute Settlement Body (DSB) andinvoke
paragraph 2ofArticle XXIII ofGATT 1994 andrelevant provisions oftheDSU"3.
Therepresentative ofIndia saidthatfulldetails concerning thismatter hadbeencirculated in
WT/DS33/1 on15March 1996. Herecalled thaton30December 1994, Indiahadreceived arequest
fromtheUnited States toholdconsultations under thebilateral textile agreement4onimports ofwoven
woolshirts andblouses (category 440). India andtheUnited States hadmetinGeneva on18-19 April
1995 todiscuss certain textile issues ofmutual interest, including theabove-mentioned request for
consultations. On18April 1995, India hadexplained thatitwaslegally unsustainable fortheUnited
States topursue consultations under thebilateral agreement which hadterminated on31December
1994, andhadpointed outtotheanomalies andinconsistencies thatcould arisewithregard totheATC
iftheUnited States weretopursue itsrequest. Onthatsame date,theUnited States hadmade anew
request forconsultations under Article 6oftheATC onimports ofwoven wool shirts andblouses
(category 440). Under thisnewrequest, consultations hadbeenheldon14-16 June1995. India had
pointed out,onthebasisofdataprovided withtherequest, thattheUnited States hadreferred to"serious
damage oractual threat thereof" toitsindustry, buthadnotclearly indicated whether ithaddetermined
"serious damage" or"actual threat thereof", although thestatement attached tothetextofthisrequest
hadconsistently referred to"serious damage". India hadargued that,based onthisdata, there was
nojustification foranyaction under Article 6oftheATC. Nevertheless, on14July1995, theUnited
States hadimposed aunilateral restraint onimports ofwoven wool shirts andblouses from India,
effective retroactively from 18April 1995.
Pursuant toArticle 6.10oftheATC, theTMB hadexamined thematter on28August -
1September and12-15 September 1995, andhadfound thattheactual threat ofserious damage had
beendemonstrated, which could beattributed tothesharp andsubstantial increase inimports from
India. However, theTMB hadnotindicated whether ithadconsidered theUnited States 'claim of
"serious damage". On16October 1995, inaccordance withArticle 8.10oftheATC, India hadsent
acommunication totheTMB providing thereasons foritsinability toconform withtheTMB
recommendations. Ithadpointed out,interalia,thatthecriteria todetermine anactual threat ofserious
damage hadnotbeenconsidered bytheTMB during itsexamination ofthematter, norhadanyview
beentaken onthequestion oftheretroactive application oftherestraint. Ithadalsoreferred tothe
absence andinadequacy ofdatapresented bytheUnited States withregard toseveral factors referred
toinArticle 6oftheATC, andbelieved thatasituation of"actual threat ofserious damage"did not
existatall.On13-17 November, theTMB hadreverted tothismatter andhadfound thatitcould
notmake anyrecommendations inaddition toitsconclusion reached atitsmeeting inSeptember. It
considered itsreview ofthematter completed.
Thematter remained unresolved despite: (i)theconsultations heldbetween India andthe
United States, under Article 6.7oftheATC, inApril andJune1995; (ii)itsexamination bytheTMB
under Article 6.10oftheATCatitsmeetings inAugust andSeptember 1995; (iii)thecommunication
fromIndia totheTMB under Article 8.10oftheATC stating reasons forIndia'sinability toconform
withtherecommendations bytheTMB; and(iv)theTMB review andreport onthematter under
3Article 8.10oftheATC
4Agreement between theUnited States andIndia under theMFA.WT/DSB/M/13
Page5
Article 8.10oftheATC atitsmeeting inNovember 1995. India considered thatallrequirements of
Article 8.10oftheATC fordirect recourse toArticle XXIII:2 ofGATT 1994 hadbeenfullymet.
It,therefore, requested thatapanel beestablished atthepresent meeting. Italsorequested thatthe
panel consider andfindthat:(i)therestraint imposed bytheUnited States, on14July1995, onimports
ofwoven woolshirts andblouses fromIndia, effective 18April 1995, wasinconsistent withArticles 6,
8and2oftheATC; (ii)theaction bytheUnited States toimpose therestraint onimports ofwoven
woolshirts andblouses fromIndia nullified orimpaired thebenefits accruing toIndia under theWTO
Agreement, theGATT 1994, andinparticular theATC; (iii)theUnited States should bring themeasure
intoconformity withtheATC bywithdrawing therestraint imposed onimports ofwoven woolshirts
andblouses from India.
India hadalsorequested supplementary findings bythepanel that: (i)inaccordance withthe
ATC, andinparticular itsArticle 6,theburden ofdemonstrating serious damage oractual threat lay
withtheUnited States astheimporting country. TheUnited States hadtodetermine prior tothe
invocation ofArticle 6oftheATC whether toclaim theexistence ofserious damage oractual threat
thereof. These werenotinterchangeable because thedatarequirement would bedifferent. Itwould
notbevalidtotransfer atransitional safeguard toasituation ofactual threat when theclaim ofserious
damage hadfailed; (ii)therewasnoprovision intheATCunder which theUnited States astheimporting
country could impose arestraint withretroactive effect. India requested thatthepanel beestablished
with standard terms ofreference inaccordance withArticle 7.1oftheDSU.
Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthathiscountry wasunable tojoinconsensus on
theestablishment ofapanel atthepresent meeting. India was,ofcourse, freetopursue itsrequest
fortheestablishment ofapanel onthismatter. Herecalled thatinthisdispute theTMB hadagreed
unanimously ontheexistence ofactual threat ofserious damage totheUSmarket. Ithadalsobeen
abletoattribute thisthreat toimports from India. TheUnited States regretted thatIndia requested
theestablishment ofapanel inthefaceofthisunanimous action bytheTMB. TheUnited States had
beensubjecttothreeunfavourablerecommendationsbytheTMBandhadacceptedeachwithoutquestion.
India'saction undermined theeffectiveness oftheTMB bycalling intoquestion itsauthority evenin
cases inwhich theTMB rendered aclear ruling.
Therepresentative ofIndia saidthathiscountry regretted thereference made bytheUnited
States thatIndia'srequest fortheestablishment ofapanel undermined theeffectiveness oftheTMB.
Hepointed outthatifavailing ofthelegalremedies available inanagreement amounted toundermining
theeffectiveness ofanyinstitution involved intheprocess, onecould saythattherecent appeal by
theUnited States ofapanel report would undermine theeffectiveness ofthepanel process. Inthis
dispute, India hadstrictly followed theletter andthespirit oftheATC. Article 8.10oftheATC
provided Members withtheopportunity toreport within onemonth ofthereasons fortheirinability
toconform withtheTMB recommendations. Herecalled that,inthiscase, theTMB hadreviewed
thematter again butcould notalteritsprevious conclusion. Under Article 8.10oftheATC, India had
arighttorequest theestablishment ofapanel. Healsoregretted thattheUnited States hadmade a
reference concerning theunanimous decision bytheTMB. Herecalled thatTMB members served
onanadpersonam basis andeveniftheyjoined consensus onaparticular issue thisdidnotbind
governments. Inaccordance withtheATC, TMB members appointed bycountries whowereparties
tothedispute under review could notblock thedecision. Herequested theDSBtoconvene ameeting
inorder torevert tothismatter assoonaspossible.
TheDSBtooknoteofthestatements andagreed toconvene ameeting on17April inorder
torevert tothismatter.WT/DSB/M/13
Page6
3. Turkey -Action onimports oftextiles andclothing
- Statement byIndia
Therepresentative ofIndiasaidthathisauthorities hadrequested Turkey toholdconsultations
under Article XXIII:1 ofGATT 1994 andArticle 4oftheDSU onquantitative restrictions imposed
unilaterally onimports ofabroad range oftextile andclothing products from India. Therequest for
consultations contained inWT/DS34/1 hadbeencirculated on25March. India looked forward to
Turkey 'sreply inorder toarrange amutually convenient dateandplace forconsultations.
Therepresentative ofTurkey saidthathisdelegation would shortly confirm itsreadiness to
enter intoconsultations withIndia onthismatter. However, hewished tounderline several points.
First, quantitative restrictions onimports oftextile andclothing products hadbeenintroduced pursuant
tothecustoms union between theEuropean Community andTurkey which wasfullyinconformity
withtherequirements ofArticle XXIV ofGATT 1994. Article XXIV:8(a) ofGATT 1994andArticle 12
oftheDecision No.1/95 oftheEC-Turkey Association Council, contained inWT/REG22/1, required
Turkey toapply, inthetextile sector, substantially thesame commercial policy astheCommunities.
Second,priortotheestablishmentofthecustomsunion,clothingproductshadvirtuallynotbeenimported
intoTurkey duetohightariffs andother measures. Atpresent, 90percentofquantitative restrictions,
inrespect ofthirdcountries, were applied onproducts thathadnot,orvirtually not,beenimported
intoTurkey inthepastthree years. There wasnodoubt thattheestablishment ofthecustoms union
hadledtoaconsiderable opening ofTurkey 'smarket across- the-board through asubstantial reduction
ofcustoms duties andtheelimination ofother trade barriers. While itmight appear lessliberal, the
introduction oftheCommunities 'regime ofquantitative restrictions ontextiles andclothing products
would effectively open apreviously closed market. Since August 1995, prior totheestablishment
ofthecustoms union, Turkey hadmade considerable efforts toholdconsultations withallparties
concerned, including India, inorder tofindmutually agreed solutions. Many countries hadshown
great flexibility andunderstanding onthismatter. Ontheother hand, despite several attempts, India
hadfailed torespond positively toTurkey 'sdesire toholdconsultations. Thequantitative restrictions
ontextiles andclothing products constituted onlyasub-sector ofthecustoms union andshould not
beexamined separately. Hebelieved thatthese measures andallother aspects ofthecustoms union
between thetwoparties should beexamined bytheCommittee onRegional Trade Agreements. Finally,
consultationsonthismattershouldnotonlyberequestedwithTurkeybutwithbothpartiestothecustoms
union.
Therepresentative ofHong Kong recalled thatatthe21February DSBmeeting, hisdelegation
hadmade astatement onthismatter5.Atthepresent meeting, hehadonlyonespecific comment to
make. Although thequantitative restrictions hadbeenimposed fornearly three months nodetails on
thissubject hadbeenprovided byTurkey. Hong Kong'sunderstanding wasthatthose quantitative
restrictions wereinterim andhadbeendesigned foraninitial period ofthreemonths which would expire
attheendofMarch. Hong Kong hadpreviously urged Turkey torescind itsaction. Heurged Turkey
nottomodify orrenew itsinterim quantitative-restrictions regime beyond theendofthismonth, but
toterminate it.
Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities saidthat, asindicated byTurkey, the
Communities hadwished, onseveral occasions, toholdconsultations withIndia. However, theseefforts
hadnotbeensuccessful since India wasnotready toenter intoconsultations. Herecalled that,on
31July1995, Turkey hadexpressed thedesire toholdconsultations withIndia onthismatter, buthad
received noreply. India hadbeen contacted byTurkey, inAnkara, inNovember 1995. The
Communities hadalsocontacted India inBrussels. Hereiterated thatsince thematter athandreferred
tooneaspect ofthecustoms union toconcentrate onthataspect onlywould provide adistorted picture
5WT/DSB/M/11WT/DSB/M/13
Page7
oftheoverallsituation.Hebelieved,therefore,thatallaspectsofthecustomsunionshouldbeconsidered
during itsexamination bytheCommittee onRegional Trade Agreements. Herecognized thatIndia
hadtherighttorequest consultations onthismatter. However, since thecustoms union wasbetween
Turkey andtheCommunities hehoped thattheCommunities would participate inthese consultations.
Therepresentative ofJapan expressed hisdelegation 'sgreat interest inthismatter, andsaid
thatalthough Japan didnothavedetailed information ithadsome doubts about theconsistency ofthe
measures withArticle XXIV ofGATT 1994andArticle 2oftheAgreement onTextiles andClothing
(ATC). Hetherefore requested further information onthismatter.
Therepresentative ofIndia thanked Turkey 'sdelegation foritsreadiness toenter into
consultations onthismatter. India, likeHong Kong andJapan, didnothaveanyofficial details on
thissubject. With respect totheefforts made toholdconsultations, referred tobytheCommunities,
India hadnotbeenclear under which provisions oftheWTO Agreement these restrictions hadbeen
imposed -alackofclarity thathadexisted foraverylongtime. However, hewould provide awritten
response onthisissue atthelaterstage. Herecalled thatafirstcommunication onthissubject had
beenreceived on22December 1995 andtherestrictions hadbeenimposed on1January 1996. He
stressed thattheconsultations under Article XXIII:1 ofGATT 1994 were essentially bilateral.
TheDSBtooknoteofthestatements.
4. United States -Increase intheratesofdutyoncertain products oftheEuropean Communities
(Presidential Proclamation No.5759 of24December 1987)
- Statement bytheEuropean Communities
Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities, speaking under "Other Business", drew
attention totheunilateral measures taken bytheUnited States as"compensation" against the
Communities 'directive prohibiting theuseofhormones intheproduction ofbeefcattle, andtheban
onimports intotheCommunities ofbeeffrom cattle raised withtheuseofhormones. Asrequested
bytheUnited States, thetwoparties would holdconsultations onthismatter laterintheday. He
underlined, however, thatwhile requesting theconsultations theUnited States hadadopted and
maintained, since January 1989, unilateral measures pursuant toPresidential Proclamation No.5759
of24December 1987aimed at"compensating" fortheinjury suffered asaresult ofthemeasures taken
bytheCommunities. Punitive tariffs hadbeenimposed bytheUnited States onimports ofproducts
suchas:beef, soluble orinstant coffee extracts, certain drinks withlowalcoholic content, tomatoes
(preserved), fruitjuices, andpetfood. Thevalue ofsuch imports hadamounted tomore than
US$90million. TheCommunities considered that,inlightofthemultilateral rules, agreed uponby
Members, theUnited States 'attitude wasunacceptable, since theyhadmade determinations bothon
thelegality oftheCommunities 'measures andthetrade damage theyhadsuffered. TheUnited States
action wasthatofjudge andparty inthiscase, while itwasuptotheWTO todecide onthelegality
ofanydisputed measure. Itwasalsocontradictory andunacceptable fortheextent oftrade damage
tobedetermined prior toexamination bytheWTO ofthelegality ofmeasures. Thiswasabasic
foundation oftheWTO rules. Itwascontradictory foraMember toapply unilateral retaliatory measures
against another Member andatthesame timerequest consultations pursuant toWTO rules. Inthe
past,theCommunities had,inother cases which didnotconcern them directly, toquestion recourse
tosuchunilateral measures andeventhethreat ofsuchmeasures which could havenegative effects
ontrade. Atthepresent meeting, heonlywished toexpress concerns regarding theUnited States '
position onthismatter.
Therepresentative ofJapan saidthatMembers hadtheobligation toresolve anydispute falling
within thescope oftheWTO Agreement through theDSU. Therefore, theUnited States 'attempt toWT/DSB/M/13
Page8
findasolution onthismatter through unilateral measures was,inhisdelegation 'sview, notonlycontrary
totheletter butalsotothespirit oftheDSU, andshould notbetolerated intheWTO. Japan believed
thatthismatter should beresolved through theuseofthedispute settlement mechanism.
Therepresentative ofCanada recalled thathiscountry hadrequested tobejoined inconsultations
which hadbeenrequested bytheUnited States withtheEuropean Communities ontheprohibition of
imports ofbeefcontaining hormones.6Withregard tothepoint raised bytheCommunities concerning
theretaliatory action taken in1989 bytheUnited States, hesaidthatCanada strongly believed inthe
dispute settlement system andfirmly believed thatretaliatory measures should onlybetaken aftertheir
authorization bytheDSB. Henoted thattheUnited States 'measures weretaken priortothecompletion
oftheUruguayRoundandimplementationofitsresults.Canadahopedthatunderthenewcircumstances
similar situations would notariseagain inthesame manner.
TheDispute Settlement Body tooknoteofthestatements.
5. Turkey- Action onimports oftextiles andclothing
- Statement byHong Kong (WT/DS29/1)
Therepresentative ofHong Kong, speaking under "Other Business", recalled thatatthe
21February DSBmeeting, hisdelegation hadraised serious concerns regarding theunilateral imposition
ofquantitative restrictions byTurkey onimports ofabroad range oftextile andclothing products from
alarge number ofsuppliers, including Hong Kong. Onthatoccasion, Hong Kong hadurged thatthe
action taken byTurkey berescinded. On12February, hisauthorities hadrequested Turkey tohold
consultations under Article XXII:1 oftheGATT 1994 andArticle 4oftheDSU7.After four
communications toTurkey, thedateandvenue forconsultations hadnotyetbeendetermined andthe
thirty-day requirement toenterintoconsultations, provided forinArticle 4.3oftheDSU, hadalready
elapsed. However, heunderstood thatTurkey hadinformally indicated toagree toholdconsultations
inthemiddle ofApril. IfTurkey, atthepresent meeting, confirmed thisunderstanding, Hong Kong
would attribute thistotheverypositive, though sometimes unstated, impact oftheDSB.
TherepresentativeofThailand,speakingalsoonbehalfofMalaysiaandthePhilippines,recalled
thaton22Februarytheabove-mentionedMembershadrequestedtojoinconsultationsunderArticle4.11
oftheDSU, ontheunilateral imposition ofquantitative restrictions byTurkey onimports oftextile
andclothing products.8Heregretted thatthethirty-day period toenter intoconsultations, provided
forinArticle 4.3oftheDSU, hadelapsed, anddespite thewillingness topatiently await andto
accommodate apossible newdateforconsultations, noformal replyhadyetbeenreceived fromTurkey
onthismatter. Inviewoftheirsubstantial trade interest inthiscase, theabsence ofresponse tothe
request forconsultations should notbeattheexpense ofthecomplaining parties 'genuine efforts to
seekamutually-satisfactory solution attheearliest possible date. Hehoped thatawell-reasoned reply
would beprovided byTurkey assoonaspossible. Heurged thatinthefuture, decisions ofthisnature
betaken sufficiently inadvance toenable allconcerned Members toplanmore effectively.
Therepresentative ofTurkey confirmed thathiscountry hadaccepted toholdconsultations
withHong Kong on16-17 April inGeneva. Henoted thestatement made byThailand which would
beconveyed tohisauthorities.
6WT/DS26/4
7WT/DS29/1
8WT/DS29/3WT/DSB/M/13
Page9
TheDSBtooknoteofthestatements.
6. Requests tobejoined inconsultations under theDSU
- Announcement bytheChairman
TheChairman saidthattherehadbeenseveral cases where anumber ofdelegations hadnotified
theDSBoftheirdesire tobejoined intheconsultations initiated byother Members under Article 4.11
oftheDSU. Thepractice oftheSecretariat insuchinstances hadbeentocirculate thefulltextofthe
notification asaWT/DS document. However, ittooktimetotranslate andcirculate thefulltext,
particularly when thereweremany requests tobejoined inthesameconsultations. Asaresult, Members
hadoften found themselves nottobeinaposition toknow which other Members hadindicated their
desire tobejoined intheconsultations during theten-day period inwhich suchreports wereallowed.
Forthepurpose ofanexpeditious processing andcirculation ofcommunications hewished topropose
animprovement intheprocedure. Communications requesting tobejoined intheconsultations would
notbereproduced infull,unless requested otherwise bytherespective Member. Instead, theSecretariat
would issue anotestating thataMember hadrequested tobejoined intheconsultations andthatthe
textofthecommunication bythatMember could beconsulted attheSecretariat. Hehoped thatthis
change would contribute tothemoreefficient operation ofthedispute settlement system. Heannounced
thatthetextofthisproposal wasavailable todelegations atthereception deskandthathewould revert
toitatthenextDSBmeeting9.
TheDSBagreed torevert tothismatter atitsnextmeeting.
9Subsequently circulated inWT/DSB/W/23