INTRODUCTION

On 22 April 2015, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) adopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report, as upheld by the Appellate Body Report, in United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Shrimp from Viet Nam. This dispute concerns Viet Nam's challenge of certain anti-dumping measures imposed by the United States in the context of the US anti-dumping proceedings in Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Shrimp), and of certain US laws, methodologies, and practices with respect to the imposition of anti-dumping duties. The Panel found the measures at issue to be inconsistent with several provisions of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (Anti-Dumping Agreement), as well as with Article VI:2 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994). Most of the Panel's findings were not subject to appeal. Viet Nam's appeal was limited to the issue of whether the Panel acted inconsistently with Article 11 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU) in finding that Viet Nam had not established that Section 129(c)(1) of the US Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) is inconsistent “as such” with several provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. At the meeting of the DSB held on 20 May 2015, the United States indicated its intention to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute in a manner that respects its World Trade Organization (WTO) obligations, and stated that it would need a reasonable period of time in which to do so.

By letter dated 17 September 2015, Viet Nam informed the DSB that consultations with the United States had not resulted in an agreement on the reasonable period of time for implementation pursuant to Article 21.3(b) of the DSU. Viet Nam therefore requested that this period be determined through binding arbitration pursuant to Article 21.3(c). By joint letter dated 7 October 2015, Viet Nam and the United States agreed on the undersigned as the Arbitrator for this matter. I informed the parties of my acceptance of the appointment by letter dated 8 October 2015.

INTRODUCTION

This arbitration is being conducted pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU) in order to determine the “reasonable period of time” for implementation of the recommendations and rulings of the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) in the dispute Peru – Additional Duty on Imports of Certain Agricultural Products.

On 31 July 2015, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report, as modified by the Appellate Body Report, in Peru – Additional Duty on Imports of Certain Agricultural Products. This dispute relates to the imposition of additional duties by Peru on certain types of rice, sugar, maize and milk. The Panel and the Appellate Body found that the additional duties resulting from the Price Range System (PRS) are inconsistent with Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture and with the second sentence of Article II:1(b) of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994).

At the DSB meeting held on 31 July 2015, Peru informed the DSB of its intention to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this dispute, and indicated that it would need a reasonable period of time for implementation. By joint letter dated 14 September 2015, Guatemala and Peru agreed that, in the absence of an agreement between the parties on a reasonable period of time, any award issued by an arbitrator under Article 21.3(c) of the DSU, including awards not made within 90 days after the date of adoption of the recommendations and rulings of the DSB, would be deemed to be an award of the arbitrator for the purposes of Article 21.3(c) of the DSU in determining the reasonable period of time for Peru to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.

On 1 October 2015, Guatemala informed the DSB that it had not reached an agreement with Peru on the reasonable period of time for implementation. Consequently, Guatemala requested that the reasonable period of time be determined through binding arbitration pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU.

By joint letter dated 9 October 2015, Peru and Guatemala agreed that I should serve as Arbitrator pursuant to Article 21.3(c) of the DSU.