INTRODUCTION

On 27 January 2003, the Dispute Settlement Body (“DSB”) adopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report, as modified by the Appellate Body Report, in United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (“US – Offset Act (Byrd Amendment)”). At the DSB meeting of 27 January 2003, the United States stated that it intended to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in a manner that respected the United States’ WTO obligations. The United States confirmed those intentions at the DSB meeting of 19 February 2003. At the DSB meeting of 26 February 2003, the United States stated that it would require a “reasonable period of time”, pursuant to the terms of Article 21.3 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “DSU”), to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this dispute.

On 14 March 2003, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, the European Communities, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand (the “Complaining Parties”) informed the DSB that consultations with the United States had not resulted in agreement on the reasonable period of time for implementation of the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. The Complaining Parties therefore requested that such period be determined by binding arbitration, in accordance with Article 21.3(c) of the DSU.

The United States and the Complaining Parties were unable to agree on the appointment of an arbitrator within a period of ten days following referral of the matter to arbitration. Therefore, the Complaining Parties, on 24 March 2003, requested that the arbitrator be appointed by the Director-General, pursuant to footnote 12 to Article 21.3(c). Following consultations with the United States and the Complaining Parties, the Director-General appointed me as arbitrator on 2 April 2003. The parties to the arbitration were informed of my acceptance of the appointment on 3 April 2003.