In the Uruguay Round Agreements Act ("the Act"), passed on 8-12-1994, the US Congress has specifically provided by Section 102: "No provision of WTO Agreements or its application, "that is inconsistent with any law of the United States shall have effect". Its total contempt for its obligations under WTO and even DSB Appellate Body decisions, is spelt out in Kentor's solemn assurance: "According to GATT Section 102, when there is trade dispute under GATT, the US law will precede over GATT in every case,not just in some cases, not just in most cases, but in every case!" This was not an empty boast. The Congress took no chance, and specifically provided by Section 102 that any state law inconsistent with WTO Agreements - even after such finding by Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) or Appellate Body of WTO, - will not be invalid, unless and until so declared by US court in subsequent proceedings; and that in any such proceedings, decisions of WTO bodies -- even their final rulings arrived at after full opportunity and participation at all stages by the US representatives -- will not be "binding and shall not be accorded deference" by US courts. (emphasis supplied). Such proceedings will be decided according to US law, and USTR, who was the defender before WTO/DSB, will now assume the role of complainant, and the aggrieved member country will neither be a party nor have any say.

The act further limits and takes away even the remotest possibility of any member nation or any private party seeking redress orremedies in US courts on basis or any rights available / or claimable any of the WTO Agreements or by virtue of even the Congressional approval of such agreements. The right to challenge any action of any department, agency, etc of US, or of any state which is inconsistent with such agreement, is taken away.

The concerned state authorities at their sweet will can veto such final conclusions of WTO/DSB, which involve consultations, hearing and deliberations by impartial independent technical and other international experts; heavy costs and loss of time, even if these result in injustice or prejudice to other member nations. All that Section 102(b)) 1(c) requires the US trade representative to do in such a situation, is to consult with the state concerned "in an effort to develop a mutually agreeable response to the report of the panel or the appellate body". There is no compulsion, not even an assurance, that the state concerned will be required to amend its law.

This is in striking contrast to what USexpects from India in the context of the WTO/DSB decision requiring India to amend its patent law to statutorily provide for filing of applications and grant of EMR in respect of pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical products. Compliance is insisted before April 1999. India should also adopt and follow sec. 102 of US Act.

Powers given to USTR for action under Special 301 prevails over WTO agreements. Section 313 of the act specifically provides: "A foreign country may be determined to deny adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights, notwithstanding the fact that the foreign country may be in compliance with the specific obligations" of TRIPS. This is denial of other member nations' rights under TRIPS.

The Federal government's sovereign authority permitting use of a patent or a copyright or an industrial design etc, under the fifth amendment of US constitution and under US code - Title 28 USC 1498, etc, though inconsistent with articles 31 and 44 of TRIPS, remainsunchanged.

Other US laws like "Buy American Act", Safeguards Act", Sec. 337 of "Tariffs Act", etc require study for consistency with WTO Agreements. The US laws on WTO and global trade spell out total defiance and negation of the letter and spirit of the WTO agreements. The US, ever so keen to `pry open' all the trade barriers of other countries, has created barriers for protecting its domestic trade and industry too difficult to breach.