RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE WT/DSB/M/8
1November 1995
ORGANIZATION(95-3370)
DISPUTE SETTLEMENT BODY
11October 1995
MINUTES OFMEETING
Held intheCentre William Rappard
on11October 1995
Chairman: Mr.Donald Kenyon (Australia)
Subjects discussed: Page
1. Composition oftheStanding Appellate Body 1
2. European Communities -Duties onImports ofCereals 2
- Request byCanada fortheEstablishment ofaPanel (WT/DS9/2) 2
3. European Communities -Trade Description ofScallops 3
- Request byPerufortheEstablishment ofaPanel (WT/DS12/7)
- Request byChile fortheEstablishment ofaPanel (WT/DS14/6) 3
4. European Communities -Duties onImports ofGrains 5
- Request bytheUnited States fortheEstablishment ofaPanel
(WT/DS13/2) 5
5. Australia -Measures Affecting Importation ofSalmon. 5
- Request forConsultations byCanada (WT/DS18/1) 5
1. Composition oftheStanding Appellate Body
TheChairman saidthatfurther totheprogress report made attheDSBMeeting on27September
1995, hewaspleased toreport thattheSelection Committee hadnowconcluded itsdeliberations on
thecandidates forappointment totheAppellate Body. TheCommittee 'sconclusions hadbeen
communicated tothetwenty-three Members whohadproposed candidates forappointment tothe
Appellate Body. AfewMembers hadrequested afurther short period forreflection withregard to
theconclusions reached bytheSelection Committee. Following thisfurther short period ofreflection
andonthebasisoftheconclusions reached bytheSelection Committee, heonbehalf oftheSelection
Committee, would bebringing arecommendation totheDSBontheappointment ofseven persons
totheAppellate Body bytheendofOctober 1995 ornolaterthan1November 1995. TheSelection
Committee 'srecommendation would befullyinaccord withallaspects oftheguidelines forappointment
totheAppellate Body contained intheDSU andWT/DSB/1.WT/DSB/M/8
Page2
Therepresentative ofSwitzerland saidthathisdelegation noted withinterest thattheSelection
Committee hadcompleted itsdeliberations. Hiscountry hadbeeninformed oftheSelection Committee 's
conclusions andhewished tothank thatCommittee forthedifficult taskandthehardwork ithad
undertaken inselecting theseven-member Appellate Body. Obviously aperfect solution satisfactory
toalldidnotexistandanyopinion ofacountry ontheoutcome oftheconsultations hadtodisregard
thefactthatthecandidate proposed bythatcountry wasorwasnotselected. Each country hadto
taketheriskthatitscandidate would notbeselected. However, Switzerland wasconcerned thatmoving
away from thecriteria contained inWT/DSB/1 andtheDSU could haveunfortunate consequences
forthefunctioning ofthedispute settlement mechanism andtheWTO. Hisauthorities would make
fulluseoftheadditional time-period forreflection untiltheendofOctober 1995 inorder totakea
decision.
TheChairman thanked therepresentative ofSwitzerland forhisstatement andinparticular
forhiscomments concerning thedifficulties thattheSelection Committee hadhadtofaceinconducting
theselection process. Members understood these problems andinparticular theproblem referred to
bySwitzerland, namely thatthere were many more good candidates forappointment thanavailable
posts. Thetask,therefore, hadbeenverydifficult andithadtaken some time. Henoted thatSwitzerland
hadreferred totheimportance ofthecriteria setoutintheDSU andtheguidelines contained in
WT/DSB/1 aswellastothedifficulties ofreaching aperfect decision. Hereiterated thattheSelection
Committee wasconfident thattherecommendation tobeputforward totheDSBwould befullyin
accord withallaspects oftheguidelines contained inWT/DSB/1 andtheDSU.
TheDispute Settlement Body tooknoteofthestatements.
2. European Communities -Duties onImports ofCereals
- Request byCanada fortheEstablishment ofaPanel (WT/DS9/2)
TheChairman recalled thattheDSBhadconsidered thismatter atitsmeeting on27September
1995 andhadagreed torevert toitatitsnextmeeting.
Therepresentative ofCanada reiterated thathercountry considered thatcertain regulations
oftheEuropean Communities which wereintended toimplement some oftheEuropean Communities '
Uruguay Round concessions oncereals were: (i)inconsistent withArticles IIandVIIoftheGATT
1994; (ii)inconsistent withArticle IoftheAgreement onImplementation ofArticle VIIoftheGATT
1994; (iii)nullifying andimpairing thebenefits accruing toCanada pursuant toArticle XXIII:1 (a)
and(b)oftheGATT 1994andWTO Agreement. TheCommunities hadnotagreed totheestablishment
ofapanel attheDSBmeeting on27September. Canada therefore wasagain requesting theestablishment
ofapanel withthestandard terms ofreference setoutinArticle 7oftheDSU.
Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities saidthathisdelegation could notaccept the
basic premises referred tobyCanada butcould agree totheestablishment ofapanel toexamine this
matter.
TheDispute Settlement Body agreed toestablish apanel withstandard terms ofreference in
accordance withtheprovisions ofArticle 6oftheDSU.
TherepresentativesoftheUnitedStates,Australia,JapanandArgentinareservedtheirthird-party
rights toparticipate inthepanel. Therepresentative ofJapan saidthathiscountry hadaninterest in
thiscasewhichrelatedtotheimplementationoftheCommunities'commitmentsinagricultureundertaken
intheUruguay Round.
TheDispute Settlement Body tooknoteofthestatements.WT/DSB/M/8
Page3
3. European Communities -Trade Description ofScallops
- Request byPerufortheEstablishment ofaPanel (WT/DS12/7)
- Request byChile fortheEstablishment ofaPanel (WT/DS14/6)
TheChairman proposed thattheabove-mentioned requests beconsidered together since they
pertained tothesame matter.
TheDSBsoagreed.
TheChairman drew attention tothecommunication from Peru contained indocument
WT/DS12/7.
Therepresentative ofPerusaidthaton18July1995 hiscountry hadrequested consultations
withtheEuropean Communities ontheabove-mentioned subject1inorder torestore thecompetitive
position ofPeru'sproduct, whose scientific name was"argopecten purpuratus", because theFrench
provisions2unilaterally restricted theuseofthetradedescription of"coquille Saint-Jacques" and"noix
decoquille Saint-Jacques", thusaffecting andbelittling thePeruvian product botheconomically and
commercially. Pursuant tothatrequest, PeruandtheCommunities hadheldconsultations on10August
1995withaviewtofinding asatisfactory solution tothismatter. Unfortunately theconsultations had
failed toresolve theproblem. Inaccordance withArticle XXIII ofGATT 1994, Article 14oftheTBT
Agreement andArticles 4and6oftheDSU, Perurequested theestablishment ofapanel atthepresent
meeting. Itrequested thatthepanel consider andfindthattheFrench Order andthesubsequent
amendmentstheretowere:(i)inconsistentwithArticles2and12oftheTBTAgreement;(ii)inconsistent
withArticles IandIIIoftheGATT 1994; and(iii)nullifying andimpairing benefits accruing toPeru
under theWTO. Perurequested thatasingle panel beestablished inaccordance withArticle 9ofthe
DSU withthestandard terms ofreference setoutinArticle 7oftheDSU.
TheChairman thendrew attention tothecommunication from Chile contained indocument
WT/DS14/6.
Therepresentative ofChile saidthathisdelegation requested thatthisitembeincluded onthe
agendabecauseitconsideredthattheconsultationsheldwiththeEuropeanCommunitieshadnotproduced
asolution totheproblem asstated indocument WT/DS14/6. Thus farthesteps andinitiatives taken
byChile, andtheconsultations heldontwooccasions withtheCommunities, hadfailed toproduce
satisfactory results which would enable molluscs ofthegenus Pectinidae ,towhich theChilean scallop
Agropecten Purpuratus belonged, tobemarketed inFrance without restrictions. Chile hadmade a
constant effort tosettle theissue without having torequest theestablishment ofapanel. Given its
substantial interest intheexport ofscallops toFrance, Chile hadfirstjoined theconsultations requested
byCanada heldon19June1995. On24July1995 inarenewed effort tosettle thismatter, Chile
hadrequested further consultations under Article XXII:1 ofGATT 1994.3TheEuropean Communities
hadresponded favourably totherequest forconsultations which wereheldon10August 1995. The
purpose oftheconsultations hadbeentocontinue thesearch forasolution totheproblem arising out
oftheregulation ontrade description ofChilean scallops ontheFrench market, which wasnullifying
andimpairing benefits accruing toChile under theWTO, andtoexamine theconsistency ofthat
regulation withtheprovisions ofArticles 2:1,2:2and12oftheTBTAgreement andArticles IandIII
1Therequest forconsultations iscontained inWT/DS12/1.
2TheFrench Order NOR MERP9300051 Aof22March 1993 andsubsequent amendments thereto laying down the
official names andtrade descriptions ofpectinidae.
3Therequest forconsultation iscontained inWT/DS14/1.WT/DSB/M/8
Page4
oftheGATT 1994. Unfortunately, asmentioned indocument WT/DS14/6, theconsultations hadfailed
tosettle thedispute within thetime-limits provided forintheDSU andfurther consultations werenot
likely tobeproductive. Inviewofthefactthatapanel hadalready beenestablished onthesamematter
attherequest ofCanada, Chile hadrequested thatapanel toexamine itscomplaint beestablished at
thepresent meeting. Italsorequested thatthepanel consider andfindthattheFrench Order and
subsequent amendments thereto were: (i)inconsistent withArticles 2and12oftheTBTAgreement;
(ii)inconsistent withArticles IandIIIoftheGATT 1994; (iii)nullifying andimpairing benefits accruing
toChile under theWTO pursuant toArticle XXIII oftheGATT 1994. Italsorequested thatthepanel
beestablished withthestandard terms ofreference setoutinArticle 7oftheDSU, jointly withthe
panel requested byPeru, inaccordance withArticle 9oftheDSU, andifpossible withthesamepanelists
asthose serving onthepanel established attherequest ofCanada onthesame matter.
Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities saidthatthesubstance ofthismatter would
bediscussed inadifferent forum andthattheCommunities agreed thatasingle panel beestablished
atthepresent meeting. TheCommunities alsoagreed that,totheextent possible, thesame panelists
whowerecurrently serving onthepanel established attherequest ofCanada, examine thecomplaints
byPeruandChile.
TheChairman proposed thattheDispute Settlement Body takenoteofthestatements andagree
withtherequests byPeruandChile fortheestablishment ofasingle panel. Thissingle panel should
beestablished inaccordance withArticle 9.1oftheDSU andwiththestandard terms ofreference
asprovided forinArticle 7oftheDSU which willcover thetwocomplaints. Itshould beunderstood
thatthissingle panel asstipulated inArticle 9.2oftheDSU"shall organize itsexamination andpresent
itsfindings totheDSBinsuchamanner thattherights which theparties tothedispute would have
enjoyed hadseparate panels examined thecomplaints, areinnowayimpaired".
TheDSBsoagreed.
Therepresentatives oftheUnited States, Australia, Iceland, Japan andCanada reserved their
third-party rights toparticipate inthepanel'sproceedings. Therepresentative ofCanada supported
thestatements made byChile andtheEuropean Communities thatArticle 9.3oftheDSU should be
applied tothegreatest extent possible inlightofthefactthatapanel regarding thissame issue had
already beenestablished.
Therepresentative ofPeruexpressed hiscountry 'sgratitude totheEuropean Communities
forhaving agreed totheestablishment ofapanel atthepresent meeting. However, hewished toclarify
thereason forrequesting theestablishment ofthepanel. Peru'srequest referred bothtotheviolation
complaint inrelation totheinconsistency oftheFrench measures withArticle 2and12oftheTBT
Agreement, andtheinconsistency withArticle IandIIIoftheGATT 1994aswellaswiththesubsidiary
non-violationcomplaintintermsofArticleXXIII:1(b)oftheGATT1994,insofarastheFrenchmeasures
nullified andimpaired thecompetitive benefits which Peruexpected toobtain asaresult ofthetariffs
setbytheFrench Government onthepectinidae. Perubelieved thattheconsultations heldwiththe
European Communities covered thissubsidiary non-violation complaint related tothenullification and
impairment ofthebenefits obtained byPerupursuant totheWTO.
Therepresentative ofEuropean Communities saidthattheestablishment ofapanel wasaccepted
onthebasis ofthedocument which wascirculated forthepresent meeting (WT/DS12/7). Itcould
notbeaccepted thataftertheestablishment ofapanel theterms ofreference bechanged from what
wasstated intheabove-mentioned document.
TheChairman confirmed thattherequest fortheestablishment ofapanel byPerucontained
indocument WT/DS12/7 wasthebasis upon which therequest could beaccepted bytheDSB.WT/DSB/M/8
Page5
TheDispute Settlement Body tooknoteofthestatements.
4. European Communities -Duties onImports ofGrains
- Request bytheUnited States fortheEstablishment ofaPanel (WT/DS13/2)
TheChairmandrewattentiontothecommunicationfromtheUnitedStatescontainedindocument
WT/DS13/2.
Therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthathiscountry wasveryconcerned about the
reference pricesystem adopted bytheEuropean Communities andcould notunderstand howthiscould
beconsistent withtheEuropean Communities 'tariff bindings. While theUnited States continued to
hope toreach amutually satisfactory settlement tothismatter, ithadnochoice atthispoint butto
request theestablishment ofapanel inorder topreserve itsrights under theWTO. Inlightofthe
action taken under Agenda Item2ofthepresent meeting, theUnited States thought itwould bethe
mostefficient useoftheWTO 'sresources tohaveitspanel request alsogranted atthepresent meeting.
TheUnited States recognized thattheDSU called fortheconsolidation ofpanels reviewing thesame
matter andwould havenoobjection tosuchaconsolidation inthisinstance.
Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities saidthathisdelegation noted thestatement
made bytheUnited States. TheCommunities believed thattheconsultations withtheUnited States
onthismatter werewellunder wayandhadevery chance ofreaching asuccessful result. Under these
circumstances since thismatter wasontheDSBagenda forthefirsttimetheCommunities thought
itmight bebetter nottotakeadecision ontheestablishment ofapanel atthepresent meeting.
TheChairman noted thattheUnited States hadtherighttorequest afurther meeting todiscuss
thismatter. However, since thenextmeeting oftheDSBwould beheldon1November 1995, the
United States could request thatthisitembeincluded ontheagenda ofthatmeeting.
TheDispute Settlement Body tooknoteofthestatements andagreed torevert tothismatter
atitsnextmeeting.
5. Australia -Measures Affecting Importation ofSalmon.
- Request forConsultations byCanada (WT/DS18/1)
Therepresentative ofCanada, speaking under "Other Business" saidthathercountry
wished toinform theMembers thaton5October 1995Canada hadrequested Article XXIII consultations
withAustralia regarding theprohibition oftheimportation ofsalmon from Canada. Canada had
requested theChairman oftheDSBtocirculate itscommunication totheDSB, theCouncil forTrade
inGoodsandtheCommitteeonSanitaryandPhytosanitaryMeasures.Therequestcontainedindocument
WT/DS18/1 wasbeing circulated toMembers.
TheDispute Settlement Body tooknoteofthestatement.