Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Argentina - Measures Affecting the Export of Bovine Hides and the Import of Finished Leather (WT/DS155): Report of the Panel
- United States - Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 (WT/DS136/11, WT/DS162/14): Award of the Arbitrator under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU
- Canada - Term of Patent Protection (WT/DS170/10): Award of the Arbitrator under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU
- European Communities - Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Cotton-Type Bed Linen from India (WT/DS141): Report of the Appellate Body
United States - Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 (WT/DS136/11, WT/DS162/14): Award of the Arbitrator under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 December 2017
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Argentina - Measures Affecting the Export of Bovine Hides and the Import of Finished Leather (WT/DS155): Report of the Panel
- United States - Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 (WT/DS136/11, WT/DS162/14): Award of the Arbitrator under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU
- Canada - Term of Patent Protection (WT/DS170/10): Award of the Arbitrator under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU
- European Communities - Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Cotton-Type Bed Linen from India (WT/DS141): Report of the Appellate Body
Summary
INTRODUCTION
On 26 September 2000, the Dispute Settlement Body (the “DSB”) adopted the Panel Reports in United States - Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 (“United States - 1916 Act”). On 23 October 2000, the United States informed the DSB, pursuant to Article 21.3 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “DSU”), that it would implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this case. The United States said that it would require a “reasonable period of time” for implementation, under the terms of Article 21.3 of the DSU, and that it would consult with the European Communities and Japan on the matter.
On 17 November 2000, the European Communities and Japan submitted a joint letter to the Chairman of the DSB requesting, in view of the impossibility of reaching an agreement with the United States on the time required for the implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this case, that the “reasonable period of time” for such implementation be determined by binding arbitration pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU.
By a joint letter of 19 December 2000, the European Communities, Japan and the United States notified the Director-General that they had agreed, under the terms of Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, that I act as Arbitrator in the binding arbitration to determine the “reasonable period of time” for implementation in this case. In that letter, the parties also stated that they had agreed to extend the period of time for the arbitration, fixed by Article 21.3(c) of the DSU at 90 days from the date of adoption by the DSB, until 28 February 2001. The parties further stated that they had agreed that, notwithstanding this extension of the timeperiod, the arbitration award shall be deemed to be the award for the purposes of Article 21.3(c) of the DSU. My acceptance to serve as Arbitrator was conveyed to the parties by a letter of 20 December 2000.
Written submissions were received from the European Communities, Japan and the United States on 10 January 2001, and an oral hearing was held on 7 February 2001.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Dispute Settlement Reports 2001 , pp. 2017 - 2030Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2004