INTRODUCTION

Complaint of Canada

On 3 May 2002, Canada requested consultations with the United States pursuant to Article 4 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (“the DSU”), Article XXII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“GATT 1994”), and Article 30 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (“the SCM Agreement”), concerning the final affirmative countervailing duty determination by the US Department of Commerce (“USDOC”) (File No. C-122839) issued on 25 March 2002, with respect to certain softwood lumber from Canada.

On 18 June 2002, Canada and the United States (“the US”) held the requested consultations, but failed to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution of the matter.

On 18 July 2002, Canada requested the establishment of a panel to examine the matter. Canada subsequently withdrew that request, and on 19 August 2002 made a new request for establishment of a panel to examine the matter.

Establishment and Composition of the Panel

At its meeting of 1 October 2002, the DSB established a panel in accordance with Article 6 of the DSU and pursuant to the request made by Canada in document WT/DS257/3.

At that meeting, the parties to the dispute also agreed that the Panel should have standard terms of reference. The terms of reference are, therefore, the following:

On 4 November 2002, Canada requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the Panel, pursuant to paragraph 7 of Article 8 of the DSU. This paragraph provides:

INTRODUCTION

The United States and Canada each appeals certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed in the Panel Reports, Canada – Measures Relating to Exports of Wheat and Treatment of Imported Grain (the “Panel Report”).

On 6 March 2003, the United States requested the establishment of a panel to consider a complaint against Canada with regard to two categories of measures: one concerning the export of wheat by the Canadian Wheat Board (the “CWB”); and the other involving the treatment accorded by Canada to imports of grain. Specifically, the United States asserted that: (i) the Canadian Wheat Board Export Regime (the “CWB Export Regime”) is inconsistent with Canada's obligations under Article XVII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “GATT 1994”); and (ii) certain measures relating to Canada's bulk grain handling system and to the transportation of grain by rail in Canada are inconsistent with Canada's obligations under Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 and Article 2 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures (the “TRIMs Agreement ”). The Panel (the “March Panel”) was established by the DSB on 31 March 2003.

On 13 May 2003, Canada filed a preliminary submission requesting the March Panel to rule that the United States’ claim against the CWB Export Regime under Article XVII:1 of the GATT 1994 was not properly before the Panel because the United States’ panel request did not meet the requirements of Article 6.2 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “DSU”). On 25 June 2003, the March Panel issued a preliminary ruling finding that the United States’ request for the establishment of a panel “did not meet the requirements of Article 6.2 of the DSU because it did not adequately specify the Canadian laws and regulations addressed in the United States’ claim under Article XVII of the GATT 1994”.

The United States filed a second panel request on 30 June 2003. The second Panel (the “July Panel”) was established by the DSB on 11 July 2003 and it was agreed that the July Panel would be composed of the same panelists as the March Panel. The proceedings of the March and July Panels were harmonized pursuant to Article 9.3 of the DSU.

INTRODUCTION

On 5 March 2002, pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (hereafter the “DSU”), Article XXIII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (hereafter the “GATT 1994”) and paragraph 4(b) of the Decision on Differential and More Favourable Treatment, Reciprocity and Fuller Participation of the Developing Countries, (hereafter the “Enabling Clause”), India requested consultations with the European Communities regarding the conditions under which the European Communities accords tariff preferences to developing countries under the scheme of generalized tariff preferences formulated under Council Regulation (EC) No. 2501/2001. The request was circulated to Members on 12 March 2002.

Consultations were held on 25 March 2002, but did not lead to a mutually satisfactory resolution of this matter.

On 6 December 2002, India requested the Dispute Settlement Body (“DSB”) to establish a panel pursuant to Articles 4.7 and 6 of the DSU and Article XXIII:2 of GATT 1994. On 16 January 2003, India requested the establishment of a panel for the second time. On 27 January 2003, the DSB established the Panel with the following terms of reference:

On 24 February 2003, India requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the Panel pursuant to Article 8.7 of the DSU.

its request for the establishment of a panel, India made claims not only with respect to the European Communities’ special arrangements to combat drug production and trafficking, but also with respect to the European Communities’ special incentive arrangements for the protection of the environment and labour rights. On 28 February 2003, during the meeting with the Director-General regarding the composition of the Panel, India informed both the European Communities and the Director-General that it had decided to limit the present complaint to the tariff preferences granted by the European Communities under its Drug Arrangements.

INTRODUCTION

The United States and Canada appeal certain issues of law and legal interpretations in the Panel Report United States – Final Dumping Determination on Softwood Lumber from Canada (the “Panel Report”). The Panel was established to consider a complaint by Canada concerning anti-dumping duties imposed by the United States on imports of certain softwood lumber products (“softwood lumber”) from Canada. Before the Panel, Canada challenged a number of aspects of the Final Determination by the United States Department of Commerce (“USDOC”) that led to the imposition of anti-dumping duties.

On 23 April 2001, USDOC initiated an anti-dumping investigation of imports of softwood lumber from Canada. Due to the large number of exporters of softwood lumber, USDOC limited its investigation to the six largest Canadian producers and exporters of that product, namely, Abitibi, Canfor, Slocan, Tembec, West Fraser, and Weyerhaeuser Canada. On 2 April 2002, USDOC published, in the United States Federal Register, a final anti-dumping duty order, which was subsequently amended on 22 May 2002. This order imposed antidumping duties on imports of softwood lumber from Canada, ranging from 2.18 per cent to 12.44 per cent. The final anti-dumping order contained a number of product exclusions. The factual aspects of this dispute are set out in greater detail in paragraphs 2.1 to 2.6 of the Panel Report.

The Panel considered claims by Canada that, in imposing anti-dumping duties on softwood lumber from Canada, the United States acted inconsistently with Articles 2, 2.1, 2.2, 2.2.1, 2.2.1.1, 2.2.2, 2.4, 2.4.2, 3, 5, 5.2, 5.3, 5.8, 6.10, 9, 9.3, and 18.1 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “Anti-Dumping Agreement”), as well as with Articles VI:I and VI:2 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “GATT 1994”). Canada asked the Panel to recommend that the Dispute Settlement Body (the “DSB”) request the United States to bring its measure into conformity with its obligations under the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (the “WTO Agreement”), to revoke the antidumping order in respect of softwood lumber from Canada, and to return the cash deposits collected pursuant to the investigation and determination of dumping.

INTRODUCTION

On 17 August 2000, the United States requested consultations with Mexico pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “DSU”) and Article XXIII of the General Agreement on Trade in Services (the “GATS”). This request concerned Mexico's GATS commitments and obligations on basic and value-added telecommunications services.

The consultations took place on 10 October 2000, but the parties failed to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution. On 10 November 2000, the United States requested the Dispute Settlement Body (the “DSB”) to establish a panel, in accordance with Articles 4 and 6 of the DSU, in order to examine Mexico's measures with respect to trade in basic and value-added telecommunications services. On the same date, the United States requested additional consultations with Mexico, pursuant to Article 4 of the DSU and Article XXIII of the GATS, regarding Mexico's measures affecting trade in telecommunications services. The additional consultations took place on 16 January 2001, but the parties failed again to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution. On 13 February 2002, the United States again requested the DSB to establish a panel, in accordance with Articles 4 and 6 of the DSU in order to examine Mexico's measures affecting telecommunications services.

At its meeting on 17 April 2002, the DSB established a Panel in accordance with Article 6 of the DSU. At that meeting, the parties agreed that the Panel should have standard terms of reference as follows:

On 16 August 2002, the United States requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the Panel pursuant to Article 8.7 of the DSU, which provides:

INTRODUCTION

Complaint of the United States

On 17 December 2002, the United States requested consultations with the Government of Canada pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (“ DSU ”), Article XXII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“ GATT 1994 ”) and Article 8 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Investment Measures (“TRIMs Agreement”), with regard to matters concerning the export of wheat by the Canadian Wheat Board and the treatment accorded by Canada to grain imported into Canada.

On 31 January 2003, the United States and Canada held the requested consultations, but failed to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution of the matter.

On 6 March 2003, the United States requested the establishment of a panel to examine the matter.

Establishment and Composition of the Panel

At its meeting of 31 March 2003, the Dispute Settlement Body established a panel in accordance with Article 6 of the DSU and pursuant to the request made by the United States in document WT/DS276/6 (hereinafter referred to as the “March Panel”).

At that meeting, the parties to the dispute also agreed that the Panel should have standard terms of reference. The terms of reference are, therefore, the following:

On 12 May 2003, the Director-General composed the Panel as follows:

On 13 May 2003 the Panel received two preliminary submissions from Canada requesting an early ruling on issues relating to the Panel's jurisdiction under Article 6.2 of the DSU and the adoption of special procedures for the protection of strictly confidential information.

INTRODUCTION

The United States and Canada each appeals certain issues of law and legal interpretation in the Panel Report, United States – Final Countervailing Duty Determination with Respect to Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada (the “Panel Report”). The Panel was established to consider a complaint by Canada concerning countervailing duties imposed by the United States against imports of certain softwood lumber products from Canada (“softwood lumber”). Before the Panel, Canada challenged a number of aspects of the final determination by the United States Department of Commerce (“USDOC”) that led to the imposition of the duties.

On 22 May 2002, USDOC published in the United States Federal Register a countervailing duty order in respect of softwood lumber from Canada. The countervailing duty order followed a final countervailing duty determination by USDOC on 21 March 2002. In that determination, USDOC found that softwood lumber benefited from countervailable subsidies attributable to a number of Ca- nadian government programs. USDOC found that, by conferring a right to harvest timber through stumpage programs, certain provincial governments provided goods to lumber producers. According to USDOC, these goods were provided at less than adequate remuneration, thereby conferring a benefit. USDOC also found that the subsidies conferred through the stumpage programs were specific to an industry or group of industries.

Canada argued before the Panel that USDOC's final countervailing duty determination was inconsistent with the United States’ obligations under Articles 1.2, 2.1, 2.4, 10, 12, 14, 14(d), 19.1, 19.4 and 32.1 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (the “SCM Agreement”) and Article VI:3 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “GATT 1994”).

The Panel Report was circulated to Members of the World Trade Organization (“WTO”) on 29 August 2003. In the Panel Report, the Panel concluded, at paragraph 8.1: