RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DSB/M/157 
18 December 2003 
 (03-6648) 
Dispute Settlement Body 
7 November 2003  
 
 
MINUTES OF MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard  
on 7 November 2003  
 
Chairman:  Mr. Shotaro Oshima (Japan) 
 
 Subjects discussed
: Page  
1. Surveillance of implementation of recommendations adopted by the DSB.........................2  
(a) United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916:  Status report by the United States.......................2  
(b) United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropr iations Act of 1998:  Status report by 
the United States .............................................................................................................. ...........3  
(c) United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from 
Japan:  Status report by  the United States...................................................................................4  
(d) Chile – Price band system and safeguard measures relating to certain agricultural 
products:  Status report by Chile.............................................................................................. ...4 
(e) United States – Countervailing measures concerning certain products from the 
European Communities:  Status report by the Untied States ......................................................5  
2. European Communities – Measures concerning meat and meat products 
(hormones)..................................................................................................................... ............7  
(a) Communication from the European Communities .....................................................................7  
3. Australia – Quarantine regime for imports............................................................................8  
(a) Request for the establishment of a pa nel by the European Communities...................................8  
4. Mexico – Definitive anti-dumping measures on beef and rice ............................................10  
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by the United States .................................................10  
5. European Communities – Customs classifica tion of frozen boneless chicken cuts...........11  
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by  Brazil...................................................................11  
6. European Communities – Customs classifica tion of frozen boneless chicken cuts...........12  
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by Thailand ..............................................................12  
7. Appointment of Appella te Body members............................................................................13  
 
 WT/DSB/M/157 
Page 2  
 
 1. Surveillance of implementation of recommendations adopted by the DSB 
(a) United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916:   Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS136/14/Add.20 – WT/DS162/17/Add.20) 
 (b) United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropr iations Act of 1998:  Status report by the 
United States (WT/DS176/11/Add.13) 
 (c) United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan:  
Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.13) 
 
(d) Chile – Price band system and safeguard measu res relating to certain agricultural products:  
Status report by Chile (WT/DS207/15/Add.1) 
 (e) United States – Countervailing measures c oncerning certain products from the European 
Communities:  Status report by the Untied States (WT/DS212/13) 
 
1. The Chairman
 recalled that Article 21.6 of the DSU required that "unless the DSB decides 
otherwise, the issue of implementation of the re commendations or rulings shall be placed on the 
agenda of the DSB meeting after six months follo wing the date of establishment of the reasonable 
period of time pursuant to paragraph 3 and shall remain on the DSB's agenda until the issue is 
resolved".  He proposed that the five sub-items to which he had just referred be considered separately. 
(a) United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916:  Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS136/14/Add.20 - WT/DS162/17/Add.20) 
2. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS136/14/Add.20 – WT/DS162/17/Add.20 
which contained the status report by the United St ates on progress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case concerning the US Anti-Dumping Act of 1916. 
3. The representative of the United States  said that her country had provided an additional status 
report in this dispute on 27 October 2003, in accord ance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  As noted in 
the report, legislation repealing the 1916 Act was pe nding in both the US Senate and the US House of 
Representatives.  The US administration would conti nue to work with Congress to achieve further 
progress in resolving this dispute. 
4. The representative of th e European Communities  said that the US status report again did not 
show any progress.  It was now more than th ree years after the condemnation of the 1916 Anti-
Dumping Act.  Three repealing bills had been pending for several months.  And yet, the US Congress had not even started to discuss any of these bills .  In the meantime, EC companies were facing 
substantial litigation costs to defend themselves agai nst a law that should have been repealed long 
ago, actually even before some of these court actions  had started.  The persisting lack of compliance 
by the United States in this straightforward cas e sent a worrying signal on the readiness of the United 
States to modify domestic law to comply with WTO obligations.  The EC wished to draw the attention of the DSB to the fact that the United States would, at the present meeting, request the 
establishment of a panel to examine Mexico's de finitive anti-dumping measures on beef and rice.  
This request included a challenge to  the application of fines on import ers that entered products subject 
to anti-dumping or countervailing duty investigations.
1  Such challenge was strikingly similar to the 
                                                      
1 Point 2(e) of the panel request:  "Article 93V of  the Foreign Trade Act appears to provide for the 
application of fines on importers that enter products subject to anti-dumping and countervailing duty investigations while such investigation are underway .  This provision appears to be inconsistent with 
Article 18.1 of the AD Agreement and Article 32.1 of the SCM Agreement".  WT/DSB/M/157 
 Page 3 
 
 
 case brought successfully by the EC against the US Anti-Dumping Act of 1916.  The EC hoped that 
this signalled a renewed determination by the United States to proceed to the immediate repeal of the 
1916 Anti-Dumping Act and the termination of the pending cases. 
5. The representative of Japan  said that it was truly frustrating to have to repeat the same 
statement of regret, disappointment and concern every time the two proceedings concerning Japan 
were on the agenda of the DSB under the item: "S urveillance of Implementation of Recommendations 
Adopted by the DSB".  Japan had strongly urged the United States to secure, as soon as possible, the 
passage of the legislation repealing the WTO-incons istent 1916 Act with proper retroactive effect.  
Once again, however, there had been no progress wh ile the respondent Japanese companies continued 
to suffer real, unjustifiable damages, such as legal costs.  Japan, one more time, noted with great 
concern and dismay that the end of the first session of the 108th US Congress was imminent.  Japan 
was left wondering if and when the correct implemen tation of the recommendations and rulings in this 
proceeding, namely, the repeal of the Act that  secured the termination of the pending cases, would 
take place.  The US status report and the statement needed much more improvement, as they failed to specify how exactly and how soon the United States intended to comply.  Japan was still 
contemplating the question of reactivation of the DSU Article 22 arbitration.  Japan reminded the 
United States of its right to susp end concessions or other obligations. 
6. The representative of Mexico
 said that his country had participated as a third party to this 
dispute and wished to place on record its interest  in the implementation by the United States of the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings.  He noted that, in its statement, the EC had referred to the 
modifications regarding Mexico's foreign trade legisl ation.  He underlined that Mexico's legislation 
had nothing in common with the Anti-Dumping Act of 1916. 
7. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(b) United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropria tions Act of 1998:  Status report by the 
United States (WT/DS176/11/Add.13) 
8. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS176/ 11/Add.13 which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the impl ementation of the DSB's recommendations in the 
case concerning US Section 211 Omni bus Appropriations Act of 1998. 
9. The representative of the United States  said that her country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 27 October 2003, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  The US administration 
continued to work with the US Congress with resp ect to appropriate statutory measures that would 
resolve this matter. 
10. The representative of th e European Communities  said that the EC welcomed the introduction 
of a bill last June in Congress that would, inter alia , repeal Section 211.  This bill would not only 
remove a damaging special interest legislation.  It would also provide a whole scheme of measures 
that would ensure an effective protection of intell ectual property rights both in Cuba and in the United 
States.  Moreover, it would be a sign of the US attachment to ensuring adequate protection of 
intellectual property rights.  The EC stressed that  the deadline for implementation was approaching 
and hoped that this bill would offer a solution to this dispute to the benefit of all. 
11. The representative of Cuba  said that her delegation had noted the status report provided by the 
United States and the statement made by the EC at the present meeting.  Cuba was compelled, once again, to reiterate its concern at the lack of co mpliance on the part of the United States for several 
months now.  The US administration was carrying out  consultations with the US Congress in order to WT/DSB/M/157 
Page 4  
 
 adopt the requisite legislative measures, which would solve this dispute.  Cuba, therefore, once again 
urged the United States to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings. 
12. The DSB took note
 of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(c) United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan:  
Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.13) 
13. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS184/ 15/Add.13 which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the impl ementation of the DSB's recommendations in the 
case concerning US anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan. 
14. The representative of the United States  said that her country had provided a status report in 
this dispute on 27 October 2003, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  The US administration 
continued to work with the US Congress to addr ess the DSB's recommendations and rulings that had 
not been addressed by the original deadline of 23 November 2002. 
15. The representative of Japan  said that, in this instance again, Japan had no choice but to 
express its bewilderment.  The end of the extended reasonable period of time, the end of the first 
session of the 108th Congress, was very near, without even the introduction of the necessary statutory 
changes into the US Congress, th e very changes that Ambassador Zoellick and Secretary Evans had 
stated the US administration would support more than  half a year ago.  This situation was extremely 
troubling to Japan, as there might not be enough time le ft before the expiry of the reasonable period of 
time for the United States to implement the DS B's recommendations and rulings.  The US 
administration must do its utmost to ensure comp liance before the end of the reasonable period of 
time. Japan wished to remind the United States of its right to suspend concessions or other 
obligations, should the United States fail to do so by  the expiry of the reasonable period of time.  
Japan expected the United States to consult urgently  with Japan on its detailed and specific plan for 
implementation. 
16. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(d) Chile – Price band system and safeguard measure s relating to certain agricultural products:  
Status report by Chile (WT/DS207/15/Add.1) 
17. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS207/ 15/Add.1, which contained the status 
report by Chile on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in the case concerning price band system and safeguard measu res relating to certain agricultural products. 
18. The representative of Chile
 said that, pursuant to Article 21.6 of the DSU, his country was 
submitting to the DSB its second status report on  progress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations or rulings in this dispute.  As  stated in Chile's written report, Supreme Decree 
No. 831 of the Ministry of Finance regulating the application of new Article 12 of Law 18.525, as 
substituted by Article 1 of Law 19.897, had been  published in the Chilean Official Journal on 
4 October 2003.  This Decree regulated structural  and operational aspects of the new price band 
system which would enter into force for two of the pr oducts at issue in this dispute, namely wheat and 
wheat flour, on 16 December 2003.  He recalled that at the previous regular DSB meeting, Argentina 
had asked a number of questions and had made assertions concerning the inconsistency of the 
implementation measure.  As far as the questions we re concerned, Chile believed that many of the 
doubts raised had been answered by the Regulation which had been published subsequently to that 
meeting.  Chile did not, however, agree with the st atement made by Argentina and considered that the  WT/DSB/M/157 
 Page 5 
 
 
 implementation measures, which were currently be ing adopted, reflected the DSB's recommendations 
or rulings in both the form and the content. 
19. The representative of Argentina  said that his country had taken note of the information 
provided by Chile regarding the so-called "progress"  in the implementation of DSB recommendations 
and rulings in this dispute.  Argentina consider ed that Supreme Decree No. 831 of the Ministry of 
Finance regulating the application of Article 12 of Law 18.525, as substituted by Article 1 of 
Law 19.897, establishing rules on the importation of goods into Chile did not bring the measure that had been declared WTO-inconsiste nt into conformity with the WTO Agreements.  In this regard, 
Argentina regretted that Chile had not replied to any of the questions that had been raised in 
connection with this matter at the 2 October DSB m eeting.  For this reason, Argentina wished to 
reaffirm its opposition to the "new" price band system , as referred to it by Chile.  Argentina believed 
that the inconsistency was, essentially, in preserving such a system.  The "new" system had failed to 
implement the recommendations adopted by the DSB since, inter alia :  (i) it reserved the reference 
price mechanism;  (ii) it maintained the same floor  and ceiling levels under the price band until 2007;  
and (iii) it added to the distortion, given that, as of 2007, parameters for the price band floor and 
ceiling levels would be set on the basis of fairly  meaningless fixed coefficients, thereby further 
accentuating the system's isolation from market fluctu ations for an additional seven-year period.  In 
this regard, Argentina wished to recall that both the Panel Report and the A ppellate Body Report had 
validated Argentina's allegations regarding the inc onsistency of the Chilean Price Band system with 
Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  The same Reports indicated that the only form of 
implementation allowed by the DSB's recommenda tions that was consistent with Chile's WTO 
obligations was the application of ordinary customs duties.  Furthermore, Chile's most recent status 
report indicated that the "new" system would en ter into force on 16 December 2003 for wheat and 
flour, but once again had failed to mention the date on which edible vegetable oils would cease to be 
subject to the system.  Chile's assertion that ed ible vegetable oils and oilseeds "will no longer be 
subject to the said price band system" as of some unspecified date in the future raised doubts.  
Argentina considered this matter to be important a nd regretted that Chile ha d given no reply in this 
respect, despite the formal request made at the prev ious DSB meeting.  Finally, in the light of the 
aforementioned points, Argentina wished to reserve its rights under the DSU, in particular the possibility of requesting the initiation of negotiati ons with a view to agreeing on a mutually 
acceptable compensation.  Argentina reiterated the im portance of seeking alternatives, in the spirit of 
cooperation that characterized relations between th e two countries, before the end of the reasonable 
period of time to which Chile was en titled under Article 21.3 of the DSU. 
20. The representative of Chile
 said that he wished to refer to the last point raised by Argentina 
with regard to the exclusion of edible vegetable oils and oil seeds from the price band system.  The 
products in question; i.e. vegetable oils and oil seeds had been excluded as from the date of 
publication of the law in the official journal, namely, on 29 September 2003.  This was confirmed by 
a Resolution of the national customs service, a copy of  which would be provided to Argentina later in 
the day. 
21. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting. 
(e) United States – Countervailing measures con cerning certain products from the European 
Communities:  Status report by the Untied States (WT/DS212/13) 
22. The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS212/ 13, which contained the status report 
by the United States on progress in the implementati on of the DSB's recommendations in the case on 
US countervailing measures concerning certain  products from the European Communities. WT/DSB/M/157 
Page 6  
 
 23. The representative of the United States
 said that her country had provided its first and final 
status report in this dispute on 27 October 2003, in  accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  As 
noted in the status report, on 23 June 2003, the US Department of Commerce had published a notice 
announcing a modification of the manner in which the Department would analyze the question of 
whether a subsidized, government-owned company rema ined subsidized after it was "privatized".  As 
also noted in the status report, on 24 October 2003, the Department of Commerce had issued final 
revised determinations for each of the twelve counter vailing determinations that were at issue.  Each 
of those determinations was c onsistent with the rulings and recommendations that the DSB had 
adopted in this dispute. With respect to th e six revised determinations involving original 
countervailing duty investigations, in two cases the countervailing duty orders would be revoked, in 
one case the privatized company would be excluded  from the order, and in three cases the cash 
deposit rate for estimated duties would be reduced.  With respect to the two revised determinations 
involving administrative reviews of outstanding co untervailing duty orders, the cash deposit rates 
would be reduced - in one case to zero.  The dete rminations involving original investigations and 
administrative reviews were being given effect on 7 November 2003.  With respect to the four revised 
determinations involving sunset reviews of outstanding countervaili ng duty orders, none of the orders 
would be revoked, because the Department of Comme rce had found that the application of its new, 
WTO-consistent analysis would not change its orig inal conclusions that continued subsidization was 
likely.  Additional details concerning these determin ations could be found in the 27 October status 
report, and the determinations themselves woul d be available on the Department of Commerce 
website mentioned in the final pa ragraph of the US status report.   With these actions, the United 
States would have now implemented the recommendati ons and rulings of the DSB in this dispute. 
24. The representative of the European Communities  said that since 1998 the EC had been 
challenging the US procedures to evaluate the impa ct of a privatization when assessing the existence 
of subsidies for countervailing purposes.  After five years and two almost identical cases lost by the United States (DS138 and DS212), the EC hoped that this saga was now coming to a close.  The 
Notice of Final Modification of Agency Practice Under Section 123 of the Uruguay Round 
Agreements Act had eventually established, in pr inciple, the presumption that a company did not 
benefit from prior subsidies if it had been privatized in an arm's length, fair market value transaction.  
On the other hand, the Notice also set forth a lis t of factors which US Department of Commerce 
(DOC) should take into consideration when ex amining whether the above presumption could be 
rebutted.  This list was very broad and could, if extensively interpreted, cover factors that went  
beyond the "governmental economic and other policies"  which, in the Appellate Body's view, would 
be able to influence the circumstances and the conditi ons of the sale.  This having been said, it would 
appear that in eight of the 12 cases at issue the US Department of Commerce's (DOC) re-examination 
of the privatizations had led to satisfactory results . Unfortunately, the DOC had not considered that an 
analysis of the privatization was necessary to implem ent the DSB's rulings in relation to the other four 
cases.  The EC was still evaluating the reasons of such omission and its consequences on the 
implementation process. 
25. The representative of Mexico
 said that his country had participated in this case as a third party 
and had followed with much interest both the ma tter and the status report presented by the United 
States.  Mexico could not pronounce itself upon the new methodology and was evaluating the elements of the proposal.  However, it did not agre e that the United States should have continued to 
apply the illegal methodology.  Even after publi cation of its new methodology, the United States 
continued to apply the same methodology, which was not correct and Mexico would continue to 
consider its options in this regard. 
26. The DSB took note
 of the statements. 
  WT/DSB/M/157 
 Page 7 
 
 
 2. European Communities – Measures concernin g meat and meat products (hormones) 
(a) Communication from the European Communities (WT/DS26/22 – WT/DS48/20) 
27. The Chairman  said that this item was on the agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
the European Communities.  He drew attention to the communication from the EC contained in 
document WT/DS26/22-WT/DS48/20  and invited the representative of the EC to speak. 
28. The representative of the European Communities  said that as stated in the EC's 
communication, on 14 October 2003 a new Direc tive (2003/74/EC) concerning the prohibition on the 
use in stock farming of certain hormones had entere d into force.  The Appellate Body had found that 
the EC did not proceed to an a ssessment, within the meaning of  Articles 5.1 and 5.2 of the SPS 
Agreement, of the risks arising from the failure of observance of good veterinary practice combined 
with problems of control of the use of hormones fo r growth promotion purposes.  The absence of such 
a risk assessment had led the Appellate Body and the Panel to the conclusion that the EC import 
prohibition was not based on a risk assessment within  the meaning of Articles 5.1 and 5.2 of the SPS 
Agreement and was, therefore, inconsistent with th e requirements of Article 5.1 and, by consequence, 
with Article 3.3 of the SPS Agreement.  The ne w EC Directive was based on a risk assessment 
performed by an independent scientific committee.  In this Committee's opinion, a risk had been 
identified for consumers for each of the hormones of  which the use for growth promoting purposes 
was banned in the EC.  Accordingly, the EC considered  that with the entry into force of the directive, 
it was in conformity with the recommendations and ru lings made by the DSB in the "Hormones case".  
Given the above, the EC expected that the Unit ed States and Canada should terminate their 
suspension of concessions to the EC in relation w ith the above-mentioned dispute, in line with the 
proviso of Article 22.8 of the DSU. 
29. The representative of the United States  said that her country had reviewed the communication 
placed by the EC on the agenda of the present meeti ng and had listened to the statement that the EC 
had just made.  The United States failed to see how the revised EC measure could be considered to 
implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this matter.  For nearly 15 years, the EC had 
banned the importation of nearly all meat and m eat products from the United States.  The purported 
basis of the EC ban was that the consumption of meat from cattle raised in the United States with 
growth-promoting hormones posed a risk to human h ealth.  It was a bedrock principle of the SPS 
Agreement, however, that banning a product for purport ed health reasons had to be based on science.  
The EC measure was not based on science. To the c ontrary, after repeated study, no increased health 
risk had ever been associated with the consumpt ion of meat from animals treated with growth-
promoting hormones.  The Joint FAO/WHO Expe rt Committee on Food Additives had found that 
there was a wide margin of safety for these pr oducts. For example, it had determined that 
consumption of beef from treated animals resulted in amounts of estradiol that were 300 times lower 
than the acceptable daily intake level.  Moreover,  hormones such as estradiol were already produced 
in abundance by both the human body and cattle, and were naturally present in many everyday foods.  
For example, each person daily produced amounts of estradiol ranging from 2,000 to 30,000 times 
more, or higher, than the amount consumed from eating a 250-gram serving of meat from treated animals.  Due to high levels of naturally-occu rring hormones in cattle, it was not even possible to 
distinguish any residues of such hormones administered for purposes of growth promotion.  A single chicken egg contained many times more estradiol equivalents than the estradiol contained in a 
250 gram serving of meat from a treated animal.  A litre of milk from an untreated cow contained 
approximately 18 times as much estradiol as a 250 gram serving of meat from a treated animal. 
30. In February 1998, the DSB had adopted findi ngs that the EC ban was not based on an 
appropriate risk assessment, as required by Article  5.1 of the SPS Agreement, and had recommended 
that the EC bring its measure into compliance with  its WTO obligations.  Near the conclusion of the 
15-month compliance period, on 30 April 1999, the EC had issued a report by an EC veterinary WT/DSB/M/157 
Page 8  
 
 committee claiming increased health risks from the use of growth-promoting hormones.  However, 
this claim was not based on science.   Just like the reports relied upon by the EC before the panel and 
the Appellate Body, the April 1999 repo rt consisted of general discussi ons of types of risks, but had 
never actually assessed or found any increased risk from the consumption of meat from animals 
produced with growth-promoting hormones.  And, indeed, the EC had never, until now, claimed to 
the DSB that the April 1999 report was an appropriate  basis for adopting a ban on US beef.  To the 
contrary, during the arbitration under Article 22. 6 on the level of nullification and impairment 
suffered by the United States, the EC had acknowle dged that – even after the issuance of the 
April 1999 report – it had not implemented the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.  For 
example, in its opening submission filed on 11 June  1999, the EC had written that it "accepts that it 
has not taken the required measures to comply with  the DSB recommendations".  In July 1999, the 
DSB had authorized the United States and Canada to  suspend concessions.  Again, the EC had never 
claimed that its April 1999 report served as an ap propriate basis for its ban on meat from treated 
animals.  At the present meeting, the EC had presented Directive 2003/74 to the DSB, and claimed that this directive implemented the DSB's reco mmendations and rulings.  The Directive, however, 
neither removed the EC's unjustified ban on US beef , nor presented an appropriate risk assessment as 
a basis for the ban.  Further, aside from the ban on estradiol, the directive relabelled its ban on the 
other five growth-promoting hormones covered in this matter as "provisional measures".  A decision 
by the EC to relabel its measures, however, could not bring it into complianc e with its obligations 
under the SPS Agreement.  Nearly six years had passed since the DSB had recommended that the EC 
bring its ban on US beef into compliance with its obligations.  The United States, however, could not 
understand how this new directive presented now could amount to implementation of the DSB's 
recommendation. 
31. The representative of Canada
 said that the EC's communication to the DSB noted that the 
Directive 2003/74/EC "implements the WTO rulings" and the "... suspension of concessions to the EC by United States and Canada in this dispute are no  longer justified".  Canada had still seen no 
scientific basis for the ban.  Health Canada ha d conducted a comprehensive review of the 17 new 
studies and had concluded that they did not provide any new scientific evidence that residues in meat 
from animals treated with steroid hormones – accordi ng to good veterinary practices – posed a threat 
to human health.  Canada did not see any reason fo r WTO procedures at this time, but would welcome 
the opportunity for further discussion with the EC  concerning the justification for its measures. 
32. The representative of the European Communities
 said that the EC regretted to note that the 
United States and, to a lesser extent, Canada seemed to have already taken the view that the measures 
taken by the EC to comply with the DSB's ruli ngs were still not WTO-consistent.  The EC also 
regretted that on this basis, the United States had cl early officially stated and Canada semi-officially, 
if his understanding was correct, their intentions to maintain the suspension of concessions in relations 
with the EC's exports.  On the basis of this clearly negative positions expressed by both the United 
States and Canada, the EC would reflect on the approp riate actions that would be necessary in order to 
preserve its rights under the WTO agreements. 
33. The representative of Canada  said that he wished to clarify that he had stated officially that 
Canada was not removing the retaliatory measures. 
34. The DSB took note  of the statements. 
3. Australia – Quarantine regime for imports 
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by the European Communities (WT/DS287/7/Rev.1) 
35. The Chairman  recalled that the DSB had considered this matter at its meeting on 
2 October 2003 and agreed to revert  to it.  He drew attention to the communication from the European  WT/DSB/M/157 
 Page 9 
 
 
 Communities containing its revised panel re quest, which was circulated in document 
WT/DS287/7/Rev.1. 
36. The representative of th e European Communities  said that the EC had explained the reasons 
for its decision to request a panel in this dispute at the DSB meeting on 2 October 2003.  Therefore, at the present meeting, the EC would not repeat its expl anations.  The EC simply wished to inform the 
DSB that the panel request had been revised in orde r to clarify the language regarding the EC's claim 
that Australia violated Articles 2 and 5 of the SPS Ag reement.  The EC considered the revision of its 
panel request to be a minor technical issue, a nd believed that it was, therefore, entitled to the 
establishment of the panel at the present meeting. 
37. The representative of Australia
 said that his country was disappointed with the EC's decision 
to press ahead with this matter.  Australia’s qua rantine system was entirely WTO-consistent, and 
Australia believed that this would ultimately be  supported by a panel’s findings.  Nevertheless, 
Australia wished to register again its serious c oncerns about the potential harm which the challenge 
posed for the carefully negotiated balance reflec ted in the SPS Agreement and the ability of many 
Members, not just Australia, to maintain quara ntine systems which addressed their particular 
circumstances while meeting their international oblig ations. Australia also continued to question the 
EC’s motivations in bringing this challenge.  To a very large extent, it did not appear to be about 
commercial considerations and securing greater ma rket access for products from member States of the 
EC.  For a number of products referred to in the request, Australia had no record of member States of 
the EC having previously expressed any interest in exporting to Australia.  From Australia's 
perspective, the most likely reason that there had been no previous expression of interest was because 
no significant commercial interest existed in relation to  those products. Australia would, therefore, be 
concerned if this challenge formed part of a st rategy to alter the central principles of the SPS 
Agreement or which would threaten to undermine th e ability of all Members to design an appropriate 
quarantine system to protect animal or plant life or health. 
38. Implicit in the EC's panel request was the appa rent view that the SPS Agreement required all 
WTO Members to carry out risk assessments for all possible traded plant and animal products from all 
possible sources, regardless of the existence or e xpression of any commercial interest.  This was an 
onerous requirement for any governme nt and one which Australia did no t believe was contained in the 
SPS Agreement.  Many Members, both developed a nd developing, would find it extremely difficult to 
apply the SPS Agreement in such a theoretical and im practical way.  As in other areas, the EC seemed 
to consider that the approach which it had take n to quarantine was the only permitted model for a 
quarantine system.  This ignored the fact that the EC had a vastly different trading history and pest 
status to many countries, including Australia.  It also ignored the fact that the SPS Agreement was intended to establish a framework within which Me mbers could design a quarantine system to meet 
their particular circumstances.  Many Members maintained systems which were similar to that of Australia and which might be affected by this disput e.  Australia did maintain a conservative approach 
to quarantine matters, but it was one which was entir ely WTO-consistent and reflected its rights and 
obligations under the SPS Agreement. 
39. Australia noted that the panel request set fort h in WT/DS287/7/Rev.1 contained an additional 
substantive legal claim, which was not part of the original document WT/DS287/7, and that this 
request was, therefore, effectively a new request for panel establishment, and not merely a revised 
one.  As this was the first DSB consideration of the EC’s new request, Australia would be entitled to 
prevent the establishment of the panel at the presen t meeting.  However, given the existence of a 
previously established panel to examine a compla int related to the same matter; i.e. the Panel 
established by the DSB on 29 August to examine the Philippines' complaint on Australia's quarantine 
measures (WT/DS270/5/Rev.1), and with a view to fa cilitating the application of Article 9 of the DSU 
in a practical manner, Australia was prepared to accept the establishment of this panel at the present 
meeting.  Due to the very broad, unspecific and ope n-ended nature of the challenge, Australia wished WT/DSB/M/157 
Page 10  
 
 to recall its previous statement made in this forum indicating that the EC's request for establishment of 
a Panel in WT/DS287/7 was insufficient to satisfy Ar ticle 6.2 of the DSU.  These concerns had not 
been addressed in the new request contained in WT/DS287/7/Rev.1 and Australia reserved its rights 
to raise these concerns before the panel. 
40. The DSB took note
 of the statements and agreed  to establish a panel in accordance with the 
provisions of Article 6 of the DSU w ith standard terms of reference. 
41. The representatives of Canada , Chile , China , India , Philippines , Thailand  the United States  
reserved their third-party rights to pa rticipate in the Panel's proceedings. 
42. The Chairman  said that the DSB had taken note of the statements made earlier by the parties 
to this dispute regarding certain procedural matters relating to this case.  In light of these statements 
and the different views expressed, he believed that it would be useful for the parties to continue 
bilateral consultations on these procedural matters .  Of course, the Chairman and the Secretariat 
always stood ready to assist the parties in any way that might be helpful in this regard. 
43. The DSB took note  of the statement. 
4. Mexico – Definitive anti-dumping measures on beef and rice 
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by the United States (WT/DS295/2) 
44. The Chairman  recalled that the DSB had considered this matter at its meeting on 
2 October 2003 and had agreed to revert to it.  He drew attention to the communication from the 
United States contained in document WT/DS295/2. 
45. The representative of the United States  said that, as discussed at the DSB meeting held on 
2 October, the United States was concerned that  Mexico's definitive anti-dumping measure on long-
grain white rice from the United States, published in the Diario Oficial  on 5 June 2002, was 
inconsistent with Mexico's ob ligations under the GATT 1994 and the Anti-Dumping Agreement.  The 
United States was also concerned that certain provisions of Mexico's Foreign Trade Act, and its Federal Code of Civil Procedure, were incons istent with the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the 
SCM Agreement.  Therefore, for the reasons discu ssed at the 2 October meeting, the United States 
again requested that the DSB establish a panel pursuan t to Article 6 of the DSU, Article 17.4 of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement, and Article 30 of the SCM Agreement, with standard terms of reference, 
to examine the matters set forth in the US panel re quest.  In renewing this request, the United States 
wished to recall certain comments made by Mexi co when this item had been discussed at the 
2 October DSB meeting.  The United States wished to address briefly two erroneous statements that Mexico had made during that meeting.  First, Mexico had mistakenly asserted that the United States 
had abandoned its claim addressing Ar ticle 366 of Mexico's Federal C ode of Civil Procedure.  In 
actuality, this claim appeared in se ction 3 of the panel request.  Second, Mexico had asserted that the 
United States was claiming that certain statements  of Mexican officials were "measures".  As the 
request itself made clear, the United States was making no such claim.  Rather, it had cited statements 
of Mexican officials with respect to certain provisions that are measures – namely, Article 366 of the 
Federal Code of Civil Procedure,  and Articles 68 and 97 of the Fore ign Trade Act.  More generally, 
Mexico had made various statements at the 2 Octobe r meeting that questioned the adequacy of the US 
panel request.  The United States considered that  its request in fact complied fully with the 
requirements of Article 6.2 of the DSU.  In light of  the detailed nature of the request and the two days 
of detailed consultations held on these topics, Me xico should fully understand the basis for the US 
claims.  WT/DSB/M/157 
 Page 11 
 
 
 46. The representative of Mexico  said that he did not wish to repeat the statement made at the 
2 October DSB meeting.  The panel would certain ly be established at the present meeting and, 
therefore, he would only wish to inform the DS B that Mexico would defend its position vigorously 
and would show the errors contained in the US submission. 
47. The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to establish a panel in accordance with the 
provisions of Article 6 of the DSU w ith standard terms of reference. 
48. The representatives of China , the European Communities  and Turkey  reserved their third-
party rights to participate in the Panel's proceedings. 
5. European Communities – Customs classifica tion of frozen boneless chicken cuts 
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by Brazil (WT/DS269/3) 
49. The Chairman  recalled that the DSB had considered this matter at its meeting on 
2 October 2003 and had agreed to revert to it.  He drew attention to the communication from Brazil 
contained in document WT/DS269/3. 
50. The representative of Brazil  said that this was the second time that Brazil was requesting the 
establishment of a panel concerning the reclassi fication by the EC of the product frozen boneless 
chicken cuts, which had resulted in the application of tariffs on imports of salted chicken meat in 
excess of the tariff treatment provided for that product under the EC Sche dule of Concession under 
the GATT 1994.  As explained at the 2 October DSB meeting, the measures at issue in this case were 
the EC Commission Regulation No. 1223/2002 and the EC Commission Decision of 31 January 2003, 
regarding the definition and classification of frozen boneless chicken cuts under the Combined Nomenclature subheading 0207.14.10 and the validity of  binding tariff information.  By virtue of 
these measures, the definition of the product frozen  chicken cuts, under heading 0207, had been 
changed and, consequently, salted chicken meat products of heading 0210 now fell under the scope of 
heading 0207.  The application of these measures had resulted in the imposition of ordinary customs 
duties of 102.4 €/100kg/net on imports of  salted chicken meat in excess of the ad valorem duty of 
15.4 per cent for that product set forth and provided in Schedule LXXX.  This had significantly 
impacted on Brazil's exports of salted chicken meat to the EC.  Brazil considered that these measures 
were inconsistent with Articles II:1(a) and II:1( b) of the GATT 1994 and, as a result, nullified and 
impaired the benefits accruing to Brazil under that Ag reement.  Therefore, pursuant to Article XXIII 
of the GATT 1994 and Article 6 of the DSU, Brazil requested that a panel be established at the 
present meeting to examine this matter, with standard  terms of reference as set out in Article 7 of the 
DSU. 
51. The representative of the European Communities
 said that his delegation could not but 
express its deep regret over Brazil's decision to pursue this matter further.  While referring to the 
statement made by the EC at the 2 October DSB meeting, the EC urged Brazil to reconsider its position and withdraw its request.  As Brazil insisted with its request for the establishment of a panel, 
the EC was determined to defend its interests.  This  was even more so as the EC was convinced that it 
had acted consistently with its Schedule of commitments and in conformity with its GATT 
obligations. 
52. The DSB took note
 of the statements and agreed  to establish a panel in accordance with the 
provisions of Article 6 of the DSU w ith standard terms of reference. 
53. The representatives of Chile , China , Thailand  and the United States  reserved their third-party 
rights to participate in the Panel's proceedings. WT/DSB/M/157 
Page 12  
 
 6. European Communities – Customs classifica tion of frozen boneless chicken cuts 
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by Thailand (WT/DS286/5) 
54. The Chairman
 drew attention to the communicati on from Thailand contained in document 
WT/DS286/5. 
55. The representative of Thailand  said that on 25 March 2003, her country had requested 
consultations with the EC concerning the EC's cust oms classification of frozen boneless chicken cuts.  
Thailand and the EC had held consultations in Geneva on 21 May 2003.  However, those 
consultations had failed to resolve the dispute.  Accordingly, Thailand was requesting that the DSB 
establish a panel to consider the matter set out in Th ailand's request for the establishment of a panel in 
document WT/DS286/5.  The measure at issue was the classification of frozen boneless salted chicken 
cuts as provided in the EC Regulation No. 1223/2002 of 8 July 2002 (Regulation 1223/2002) 
concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (CN) as elaborated in 
the EC Commission Decision (Decision) of 31 January 2003 concerning the validity of certain binding tariff information (BTI) issued by Ge rmany.  Regulation 1223/2002 established a new 
description for products falling un der CN Code 0207.14.10.  By vi rtue of Regulation 1223/2002, 
goods with the following description:  "[b]oneless ch icken cuts impregnated w ith salt in all parts. 
They had a salt content by weight of 1.2 to 1.9 pe r cent.  The product was deep-frozen and had to be 
stored at a temperature lower than minus 18°C to en sure a shelf-life of at least one year" were now 
classified under CN Code 0207.14. 10.  Products un der CN Code 0207.14.10 were subject to a tariff 
of 102.4 Euros per 100 kg/net.  Prior to Regul ation 1223/2002, frozen boneless chicken cuts 
impregnated with salt in all parts were classified  as salted meat under CN code 0210.99.39.  Products 
under CN Code 0210.99.39 were subject to an ad valorem duty of 15.4 per cent.  Subsequent to the 
issuance of Regulation 1223/2002, the EC Commi ssion published a Decision addressed to Germany 
noting that BTIs previously issued by member States of the EC which classified the products concerned as salted meat under heading 0210, ceased to be valid.  The Decision further noted that 
Germany had subsequently issued BTIs classifying fr ozen boneless chicken cuts with a salt content of 
1.9 to 3 per cent under heading 0210.  The Decision stated that "the products also consisting of 
boneless chicken cuts which have been frozen for l ong-term preservation and have a salt content of 
1.9 to 3 per cent were similar to the products c overed by Regulation (EC) 1223/2002.  The addition of 
salt in such quantities was not such as to alter th e products' character as frozen poultry meat of 
heading 0207."  Therefore, the Decision instructed  Germany to withdraw the BTIs issued on frozen 
poultry meat with a salt content between 1.9 and 3 pe r cent.   As a result of the measure, the product 
classified as frozen boneless chicken cuts with a sa lt content of 1.2 per cent or more, which had 
previously been classified as salted meat at the ad valorem  rate of 15.4 per cent was  now classified as 
frozen chicken subject to a tariff rate in excess of the bound rate for salted meat in the EC's Schedule 
of Concessions under the GATT 1994.  In the view of Thailand, its exports of salted meat to the EC 
were being accorded less favourable treatment than  that provided in the EC Schedule and was in 
contravention of the EC's obligations under Articles II:1(a) and II:I(b) of the GATT 1994.  In 
addition, the EC measure created distortions in trad e that nullified or impaired, within the meaning of 
Article XXIII, the benefits accruing to Thailand unde r the GATT 1994.  Thailand was requesting that 
a panel be established with st andard terms of reference. 
56. The representative of the European Communities
 said that Thailand's decision to request the 
establishment of a panel could not but cause great di sappointment to the EC.  His delegation regretted 
that Thailand, like Brazil, had chosen this course of  action.  This was even more so as the EC had 
gone at great length to explain to Thailand – as we ll as to Brazil – over three rounds of consultation 
the EC legislation and practice on this matter.  It was obvious that Thailand had misunderstood or 
misinterpreted the EC legislation which it now attacked in the WTO.  The EC legislation in question had simply ensured a uniform interpretation of the relevant CN codes throughout the EC and, thus, a 
uniform classification of the specific products imported under the EC Common Customs Tariff  WT/DSB/M/157 
 Page 13 
 
 
 system.  Nothing else and nothing more.  The EC was convinced that it had acted consistently with its 
schedule of commitments, as read in the light of the Harmonized System of product classification.  The EC had thus ensured that it had granted Th ailand and other Members the concessions which it 
had undertaken as part of the Uruguay Round negotiati ons.  The EC urged Thailand to reconsider its 
position.  It could be unfortunate to proceed along this  path for a matter that was clearly the result of a 
misunderstanding.  To this effect, the EC st ood ready to offer additional clarifications and 
explanations if Thailand thought it was necessary.  For all the reasons mentioned above, the EC had 
no option, but to express its disagreemen t with the establishment of a panel. 
57. The DSB took note
 of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter. 
7. Appointment of Appellate Body members 
58. The Chairman  said that this item was on the agenda of the present meeting pursuant to the 
decisions taken by the DSB at its meetings on 21 and 23 July as well as on 18 August 2003.  He 
recalled that at its meeting on 21 and 23 July, the DSB had agreed to launch the process for selecting a 
new Appellate Body member to replace Mr. James Bacchus as well as the process leading up to a decision on the positions held by Messrs. Abi-Saab, Ganesan and Taniguchi.  At that meeting it had 
also been agreed that the decision on all four positions should be taken by the DSB at its meeting on 
7 November.  With regard to the positions held by Messrs. Abi-Saab, Ganesan and Taniguchi, the 
DSB had agreed that the Chairman should carry out consultations with delega tions with the view to 
informing them by 15 August of the results of these consultations.  He ha d conducted consultations 
between 23 July and 15 August and had reported on the results of th ese consultations to Members by 
fax on 15 August and at the DSB meeting held on 18 A ugust.  He recalled that he had reported that no 
delegation had indicated that they wished to nominate candidates to replace Messrs. Abi-Saab, 
Ganesan and Taniguchi, while there were those who had indicated their wish to reappoint them.  The 
DSB had agreed at that meeting that a decision on reappointment of Messrs. Abi-Saab, Ganesan and Taniguchi should be taken at the 7 November DSB me eting.  At the present meeting, he wished to 
propose that the DSB first take a decision on the replacement for Mr. James Bacchus and then on 
reappointments of Messrs. Messrs. Abi-Saab, Ganesan and Taniguchi.  Subsequently, he would invite 
delegations wishing to make statements or comments to take the floor. 
59. The DSB so agreed
. 
60. The Chairman  recalled that on 24 October 2003, delegations had received a fax from 
Ambassador Pérez del Castillo, which had been sent on behalf of the Chairman of the DSB, informing 
them of the conclusion reached by the Selection Committee, which the Chairman of the DSB had 
chaired.  He recalled that the Selection Committee had been established by the DSB with a view to 
making a recommendation on replacement for Mr. Jam es Bacchus, whose term of office would expire 
on 10 December 2003.  The Selection Committee ha d conducted thorough interviews with the two 
nominated candidates and had made itself available to hear the views of Members.  Throughout the 
process, the Committee had constantly in mind the guidelines, rules and procedures in the DSU and 
WT/DSB/1 governing the selection and appointment of  Appellate Body members.  As announced on 
24 October, the Selection Committee had reached a firm recommendation that Professor Merit Janow 
be appointed as a member of the Appellate Body  to replace Mr. James Bacchus.  The Selection 
Committee had indicated that Professor Merit Janow  was an outstanding i ndividual who was highly 
qualified for appointment to the Appellate Body.  Therefore, in light of this recommendation, he 
proposed that the DSB agree to appoint Professor Me rit Janow as a member of the Appellate Body for 
a four-year term of office commencing on 11 December 2003. 
61. The DSB so agreed . WT/DSB/M/157 
Page 14  
 
 62. The Chairman
 then turned to the issue of reappoint ments of Messrs. Abi-Saab, Ganesan and 
Taniguchi.  He proposed that the DSB agree to the following:  (i) to reappoint Mr. Taniguchi for a second four-year term of office commencing on 11 December 2003;  (ii) to reappoint Mr. Abi-Saab for a second four-year term commencing on 1 June 2004;   and (iii) to reappoint Mr. Ganesan for a 
second four-year term commencing on 1 June 2004. 
63. The DSB so agreed
. 
64. The representative of the United States  said that her country wished to thank the Chairman 
and the other members of the Selection Committee for their hard work and the recommendation which 
had aided the DSB in taking its decision at the pres ent meeting.  The United States also wished to 
thank all delegations who ha d taken the time to meet with the candidates and to express their views to 
the Committee.  The United States  also wished to express its appreciation for the efforts of the 
Secretariat throughout the selection process.  The decision taken at the present meeting would contribute to the continuing effectiveness of the Appe llate Body as it played its vital role in the WTO 
system.  The United States appreciated the significant contributions which Messrs. Taniguchi, Abi-Saab and Ganesan had made to the work of the Appellate Body during their service to date, and 
welcomed the decision by the Members to reappoint them so that Members might continue to have 
the benefit of their learning and wisdom.  The United States also welcomed the appointment of Professor Merit Janow to take the seat soon to be vacated by Mr. James Bacchus.  As Members were 
aware, Professor Janow had a distinguished career in both the practical and academic side of trade law and policy. She had been serving for several year s as a professor at Columbia University in New 
York, where she had been actively involved in issues relating to international trade, business and 
antitrust law.  Previously, she worked as a trade negotiator and as a practicing trade lawyer.  The 
United States believed that the depth and breadth of experience she would bring to her work on the Appellate Body would allow her to make a significant and positive contribution.  The United States knew that the Appellate Body would be facing ma ny complex and important issues, and knew that 
these individuals would all rise to the many cha llenges presented.  The United States looked forward 
to working with them as their new terms were to be gin.  The United States also wished to take this 
opportunity to express its gratitude for the extr aordinary work done by Mr. Bacchus since the 
inception of the Appellate Body.  He had played a cr itical role in shaping the Appellate Body into the 
respected institution it had become, and he had done so with intelligence, diligence, and wit.  The 
foundations he helped to lay would support the succ essful operation of the Appellate Body for years 
to come. 
65. The representative of Canada
 recalled that those delegations who had been present at the 
Appellate Body hearing in the Steel case had witne ssed the last participation of Mr. Bacchus in an 
Appellate Body hearing when tributes had been paid to him at that time.  Canada wished simply to 
echo the sentiments expressed by the United States and to put on the record Canada's appreciation for 
the contribution of Mr. Bacchus to the dispute settle ment process and to the WTO in general.  Canada 
also wished to add its endorsement of the wi sdom of the Selection Committee in selecting 
Professor Janow. 
66. The representative of Egypt  said that his country wished to thank the Chairman and the 
members of the Selection Committee for the consulta tions held in order to select a new member and 
to reappoint, for the second term, three members of the Appellate Body.  All Members recognized the 
vital role of the Appellate Body as a main pilla r of the dispute settlement mechanism.  Egypt 
welcomed the decision of the Selection Committee. 
67. The representative of Japan  said that her delegation wished to join other delegations in 
welcoming the two decisions the DSB had just taken and wished to express gratitude to the Chairman 
and all the members of the Selection Committee who had taken the time to conduct interviews with 
the two candidates. Japan also wished to express its gratitude to the two candidates put forward by the  WT/DSB/M/157 
 Page 15 
 
 
 United States and to the US delegation for the opportuni ty to meet with the two candidates in person.  
These meetings had taken place in Japan's mission w ith the Deputy Permanent Representative.  Japan 
welcomed the new member of the Appellate B ody, Professor Janow who, Japan was convinced, 
would make a vital contribution to the Appellate Bo dy.  Japan also welcomed the reappointment of 
the three incumbent members who, Japan believed, would continue to contribute to the Appellate 
Body's work.  Her delegation wished to take this opportunity to express its gratitude to Mr. Bacchus 
for his contribution.  She noted that all delegations  had benefited from his pe rsonality and a very good 
sense of humour.  Finally, her delegation wished to  thank the Secretariat for its assistance in arranging 
the necessary interviews with the two candidates. 
68. The representative of the European Communities  said that the EC wished to thank the 
Selection Committee for its work.  The EC regarded the Appellate Body as a fundamental pillar of the 
WTO architecture.  Of course, the high qualit y of the Members of such body was an essential 
precondition for ensuring that the dispute settleme nt mechanism performed its role of providing 
security and predictability to the multilateral tradi ng system.  The selection of Ms Janow, as well as 
the reappointment of Mr. Abi-Saab, Mr. Ganesan an d Mr. Taniguchi, was a very encouraging sign in 
this sense.  The EC was convinced of the capacity of  these individuals to maintain the highest level of 
legal expertise and authority necessary to perform  the delicate and difficult task that the DSU 
entrusted to them. 
69. The representative of India  said that his delegation wished to congratulate the Chairman for 
the smooth and efficient conduct of the process of appointment and reappointme nt of Appellate Body 
members.  India also wished to thank the Selection Committee under the Chairmanship of 
Mr. Shotaro Oshima (Japan) for the successful completion of the task of selection of a candidate to 
replace Mr. Bacchus who would complete his eight year  term as an Appellate Body member later this 
year.  India joined other delegations in its expressi on of appreciation and gratitude to the excellent 
work done by Mr. Bacchus in the high responsibility that he had held with such distinction.  India 
wished to congratulate Professor  Janow on her appointme nt to the Appellate Body.  It also wished to 
express its thanks to the US Mission for facilitating meetings with the Indian mission with both the 
candidates and the Secretariat for its assistance.  He wished to place on record India's deep 
appreciation to the three Appellate Body member s, Mr. Abi-Saab, Mr. Ga nesan and Mr. Taniguchi 
who had been reappointed for another term of fo ur years for their eminent contribution in the 
important office held by them. 
70. The representative of Australia  said that first, he wished to add Australia's voice to those who 
had welcomed the Selection Committee's decision to  reappoint the three members of the Appellate 
Body  and to appoint Professor Merit Janow.  Seco nd, he congratulated the Chairman and the other 
members of the Selection Committee on an excelle nt process of the selection procedure and, like 
others, wished to pay tribute to Mr. Bacchus for hi s great contribution to the Appellate Body over the 
past eight years. 
71. The DSB took note  of the statements. 
 
__________