RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DSB/M/440  
 
1 April 2020 
(20-2633) Page: 1/19 
Dispute Settlement Body  
27 January 2020    
 
MINUTES OF MEETING  
HELD IN THE CENTRE W ILLIAM RAPPARD  
ON 27 JANUARY 2020 
Chairman: H.E. Dr David Walker (New Zealand)  
Table of contents  
 
1   SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RE COMMENDATIONS ADOPTED  
BY THE DSB  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  2 
A. United  States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from Japan:  
Status report by the United  States  ................................ ................................ .........................  3 
B. United  States – Section  110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by the United  States  ..... 3 
C. European  Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech  
products: St atus report by the European  Union  ................................ ................................ ....... 4 
D. United  States – Anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential  
washers from K orea: Status report by the United  States  ................................ ...........................  5 
E. United  States – Certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping proceedings  
involving China: Status report by the United  States  ................................ ................................ . 5 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products:  
Status report by Indonesia  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 6 
G./H. Brazil – Certain measures concerning taxation and charges: Status report s by Brazil  ..........  7 
I. China - Domestic support for agricultural producers: Status report by China ............................  8 
2   UNITED STATES – CONTINUED DUMPING AN D SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT  OF 2000: 
IMPLEMENTATION OF TH E RECOMMENDATIONS AD OPTED BY THE DSB  ...........................  9 
A. Statement by the European Union  ................................ ................................ ......................  9 
3   EUROPEAN COMMUNI TIES AND CERTAIN MEM BER STATES – MEASURE S AFFECTING 
TRADE IN LARGE CIVIL  AIRCRAFT: IMPLEMENT ATION OF THE RECOMME NDATIONS 
ADOPTED BY THE DSB ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 10 
A. Statement by the United States  ................................ ................................ ........................ 10 
4   AUSTRALIA – ANTI -DUMPING MEASURES ON  A4 COPY PAPER  ................................ .. 11 
A. Report of the Panel  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 11 
  WT/DSB/M/440  
 
- 2 - 
 
5   APPELLATE BODY A PPOINTMENTS: PROPOSA L BY AFGHANISTAN; AN GOLA; 
ARGENTINA; AUSTRALIA ; BENIN; PLURINATION AL STATE OF BOLIVIA;  BOTSWANA; 
BRAZIL; BURKINA FASO ; BURUNDI; CABO VERD E; CAMEROON; CANADA;  
CENTRAL  AFRICAN REPUBLIC; CH AD; CHILE; CHINA; CO LOMBIA; CONGO;  
COSTA RICA; CÔTE  D'IVOIRE; CUBA; DEMO CRATIC REPUBLIC OF C ONGO; DJIBOUTI; 
DOMINICAN  REPUBLIC; ECUADOR; E GYPT; EL SALVADOR; ESWATINI;  
THE EUROPEAN UNION; GABON; THE GAMBIA; G HANA; GUATEMALA; GUI NEA;  
GUINEA -BISSAU; HONDU RAS; HONG KONG, CHIN A; ICELAND; INDIA; I NDONESIA; 
ISRAEL; KAZAKHSTAN; KENYA; REPUBLIC OF K OREA; LESOTHO; LIECH TENSTEIN; 
MADAGASCAR; MALAWI; MALAYSIA; MALDIVES;  MALI; MAURITANIA; M AURITIUS; 
MEXICO; REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA; MOROCCO; MO ZAMBIQUE; NAMIBIA; N EPAL; 
NEW  ZEALAND; NICARAGUA; NIGER; NIGERIA; NORT H MACEDONIA; NORWAY;  
PAKISTAN; PANAMA; PA RAGUAY; PERU; QATAR;  RUSSIAN FEDERATION;  RWANDA; 
SENEGAL; SEYCHELLES;  SIERR A LEONE; SINGAPORE; SOUTH AFRICA; SWITZE RLAND; 
THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS  TERRITORY OF TAIWAN , PENGHU, KINMEN AND  MATSU; 
TANZANIA; THAILAND; TOGO; TUNISIA; TURKE Y; UGANDA; UKRAINE; URUGUAY; 
THE BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA; VIET N AM; ZAMBIA AND ZIMBA BWE  ........  14 
6   MOROCCO – ANTI -DUMPING MEASURES ON C ERTAIN HOT -ROLLED ST EEL FROM 
TURKEY:  STATEMENT BY MOROCCO  ................................ ................................ ................  19 
1  SURVEILLANCE OF IMPL EMENTATION OF RECOMM ENDATIONS ADOPTED BY  THE DSB  
A. United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot rolled steel products from Japan: Status 
report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.203)  
 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/Add.178)  
 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotec h products: 
Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.141)  
 
D. United States – Anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential washers from 
Korea: Status report by the United States (WT/DS464/17/Add.25)  
 
E. United States – Certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping proceedings 
involving China: Status report by the United States (WT/DS471/17/Add.17)  
 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products: Status report 
by Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/Add.12 – WT/DS478/22/Add.12)  
 
G./H. Brazil – Certain measures concerning taxation and charges: Status report s by Brazil 
(WT/DS472/16/A dd.2 – WT/DS497/14/Add.2 ) 
 
I. China – Domestic support for agricultural producers: Status report by China (WT /DS511/15)  
 
1.1.  The Chairman  noted that there were nine sub-items under this Agenda item concerning status 
reports submitted by delegations pursuant to Article 21.6 of the DSU. He recall ed that  Article 21.6 
require d that: " [u]nless the DSB  decides otherwise, the issue of implementation of the 
recommendations or rulings shall be placed on the Agenda of the DSB meeting after six months 
following the date of establishment of the reasonable period of time and shall remain on the DSB's 
Agenda un til the issue is resolved". Under this Agenda item, he invite d delegations to provide up to 
date information about their compliance efforts. He also remind ed delegations that, as provided for 
in Rule 27 of the Rules of Procedure for DSB meetings: " [r]epres entatives should make every effort 
to avoid the repetition of a full debate at each meeting on any issue that has already been fully 
debated in the past and on which there appears to have been no change in Members' positions 
already on record". He then  turned to the first status report under this Agenda item.  WT/DSB/M/440  
 
- 3 - 
 
A. United  States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from 
Japan: Status report by the United  States (WT/DS184/15/Add.20 3) 
1.2.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS184/15/Ad d.203, which contain ed the status 
report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in the 
dispute  concerning US anti -dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from Japan.  
1.3.  The representative of the United States  said that t he United States  had provided a status report 
in this dispute on  16 January 2020, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. The United States 
had addressed the DSB 's recommendations and rulings with respect to the calculation of anti -
dumping margins in the hot -rolled steel anti -dumping duty investigation at issue. With respect to 
the DSB's  recommendations and rulings that ha d yet to be addressed, the US Administration would 
work with the US Congress with respect to appropriate statutory measures that would resolve this 
matter.  
1.4.  The representative of Japan  said that his country wished to thank the United States for its most 
recent  status report and for its statement made at the present meeting . Japan , once again , called 
on the United States to fully implement the DSB 's recommendations and rulings so as to resolve this 
matter.  
1.5.  The DSB took note of the statements and agree d to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting.  
B. United  States – Section  110(5) of the US C opyright Act: Status report by the 
United  States (WT/DS160/24/Add.17 8) 
1.6.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS160/24/Add.178, which contain ed the status 
report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in the 
dispute  concerning Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act.  
1.7.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States  had provided a stat us report 
in this dispute on 16 January 2020, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  The US Administration 
would  continue to confer with the European Union, and to work closely with the US Congress, in 
order to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution  of this matter.  
1.8.  The representative of  the European Union  wished to thank the United States for its status 
report and for its statement made at the present meeting . The EU wished to refer to its statements  
made at previous  DSB meetings under this Agenda item . The EU wished to resolve this dispute as 
soon as possible.  
1.9.  The representative of China  said that his country noted that this was the 179th status report 
submitted by the United States in this dispute. However, these re ports were not different from one 
another and none of them indicate d any progress  on implementation . Nearly two decades after the 
DSB had adopted the Panel Report  in this dispute , the United States continued to fail to bring its 
WTO-inconsistent measures i nto conformity  with WTO rules . By not complying with its  
implementation  obligations , the United States ha d been continuously failing to accord the minimum 
standard of protection required by the TRIPS Agreement and ha d become the only WTO Member 
who fail ed to implement the DSB 's recommendations and rulings under the TRIPS Agreement. 
Article  21.1 of the DSU ma de it clear that prompt compliance was essential to the effective resolution 
of disputes. China urged the United States to faithfully hono ur its commitments under the DSU and 
the TRIPS Agreement by implementing the DSB 's recommendations and rulings in this d ispute 
without further delay.  
1.10.   The DSB took note of the statements and agree d to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting.  WT/DSB/M/440  
 
- 4 - 
 
C. European  Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products: Status report by the European  Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.14 1) 
1.11.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS291/37/Add.141, which contain ed the 
status report by the European Union on progress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the dispute  concerning measures affecting the approval and marketing of 
biotech products.  
1.12.   The representative of the European Union  said that the  EU continue d to progress with the 
authori zations where the European Food Safety Authority ha d finalized its scientific opinion and 
concluded th at there were no safety concerns. On 9 December 2019, a draft authori zation for a new 
GM soybea n1 had been presented for a vote in a member States Committee with a "no opinion" 
result. This measure was then to  be submitted for a vote in the Appeal Committe e on 
23 January  2020. As the EU had repeatedly explained , and as confirmed by the United States  during 
the EU -US biannual consultations held on 12 June 2019, efforts to reduce delays in authori zation 
procedures were constantly maintained at a high level at all stages of the authori zation procedure. 
This ha d resulted in a clear improvement of the situation. During previous  DSB meetings, the United 
States had referred to what was known as the EU "opt­out Directive". The E U wished to reiterate 
that the  DSB's recommendations and rulings d id not cover that "opt -out Directive". The EU act ed in 
line with its WTO obligations. Finally, the EU  also wished to recall that the EU approval system was 
not covered by the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  
1.13.   The repres entative of the United States  thank ed the European Union (EU) for its status report 
and its statement made at the present meeting . The United States continue d to see persistent delays 
that affect ed dozens of applications that ha d been awaiting approval for  an extended period. The EU 
had previously suggested that the fault was with the applicants.  The United States  disagree d; US 
concerns relate d to delays at every stage of the approval process resulting from the actions or 
inactions of the EU and its member States. The EU had also suggested during the 18 December  2019 
DSB meeting that the United States  "appear s" to acknowledge that there was no ban on genetically 
engineered ( "GE") products in the EU.  This statement was incorrect. It was, and ha d consistently 
been, the position of the United States that the EU ha d failed to lift all of the WTO -inconsistent 
member -State bans covered by the DSB 's recommendation. The DSB had adopted findings that, 
even where the EU had approved a particular product, in many instances EU member States had 
banned those products for certain uses without a scientific basis. This include d not only the two 
member States subj ect to panel findings – Austria and Italy.  There were seven additional member 
States that had previously maintained bans on cultivation and ha d since opted out of cultivation 
under the EU 's legislation: Bulgaria, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Luxembour g, and Poland. 
There were also eight member States that had not previously ban ned cultivation of MON -810 but 
had since opted out of cultivation under the EU 's legislation: Croatia, Cyprus, Denmark, Latvia, 
Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, and Slovenia. Further, Austria and Italy appear ed to maintain 
bans on other products subject to specific panel findings. The EU 's only response, which it continue d 
to repeat, was that the member States d id not restrict marketing or free movement of MON -810 in 
the EU. As the United States had noted at the 18 December  2019 DSB meeting, this answer d id 
nothing to address US concerns. The restrictions adopted by EU member States restrict ed 
international trade in these products and had no scientific justification.  Indeed, this was why the 
DSB had adopted findings that such restrictions on MON -810 were in breach of the EU 's WTO 
commitments. The United States urge d the EU to ensure that all of its measures affecting the 
approval of biotech products, including measures adopted by individual EU member States, were 
based on scientific principles, and that decisions were taken without undue delay.  
1.14.   The representative of the European Union  said that, a s it had stated at previous DSB 
meetings , the WTO Agreement d id not require full international harmoni zation and le ft some 
regulatory space or autonomy to individual WTO Members. The European Union ha d different 
regulatory approaches to non -GMOs and GMOs but, in all cases, such regulations d id not discriminate 
between  imported and domestic like products. Contrary to what the United States ha d just asserted,  
no EU member State ha d imposed any "ban". Under the terms of the EU Directive, an EU member 
State c ould adopt measures restricting or prohibiting cultivation only w hen such measures were in 
line with EU law and were reasoned, proportional, non -discriminatory and based on compelling 
grounds. Contrary to the statement of the United States,  the free movement of seeds was embedded 
in Article 22 of Directive 18 of 2001 wh ich provide d that: "[m]ember States may not prohibit, restrict 
or impede the placing on the market of GMOs, as or in products, which comply with the requirements 
 
1 Soybean MON 87708 x MON 89788 x A 5547-127. WT/DSB/M/440  
 
- 5 - 
 
of this Directive ". The EU  also note d that, according to the provisions of the opt -out Directi ve 
(Article  26b, point 8 ), the measures adopted under the Di rective "shall not affect the free circulation 
of authorised GMOs " in the EU.  
1.15.   The DSB took note of the statements and agree d to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting.  
D. United  States – Anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential 
washers from Korea: Status report by the United  States (WT/DS464/17/Add.2 5) 
1.16.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/D S464/17/Add.25, which contain ed the status 
report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in the 
dispute  concerning anti -dumping and countervailing measures on large residential washers from 
Korea.  
1.17.   The representative of the United States  said that the  United States had provided a status 
report in this dispute on 16 January 2020, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. On 
6 May 2019, the US Department of Commerce had published a notice in the US Fede ral Register 
announcing the revocation of the anti -dumping and countervailing duty orders on imports of large 
residential washers from Korea (84 Fed. Reg. 19,763 (May 6, 2019)).  With this action, the United 
States ha d completed implementation of the DSB 's recommendations concerning those anti -
dumping and countervailing duty orders. The United States continue d to consult with interested 
parties on options to address the  DSB's  recommendations relating to other measures challenged in 
this dispute.  
1.18.   The represe ntative of  Korea  said that his country wished to thank the United States for its 
status report. Korea , once again, strongly urge d the United States to take prompt and appropriate 
steps to implement the DSB 's recommendations for the "as such " measure in this dispute.  
1.19.   The representative of Canada  said that t he United States continue d to fail to comply with the 
DSB's ruling, arising ou t of the Appellate Body report in this dispute , that the "differential pricing 
methodology " (DPM) had been  "as such " WTO-inconsistent. It ha d also ignored the DSB 's 
recommendation that the United States  bring itself into compliance with its obligations. In stead, the 
United States continue d to apply the "as such " inconsistent differential pricing methodology in 
investigations with respect to foreign companies and continue d to collect cash deposits from foreign 
exporters based on its inconsistent methodology.  The reasonable period of time to implement the 
DSB's recommendations relating to the "as such " WTO-inconsistency of the DPM had expired more 
than two years ago. However, in its status report of 16 January  2019, the U nited States  had merely 
stated that it continue d to consult with interested parties.  Moreover, the continued use by the United 
States  of the DPM ha d forced Members to resort to several dispute settlement proceedings 
concerning this measure.  This was an inefficient and unnecessary use of WTO dispute settlement 
resources. Canada remain ed deeply concerned with the continued  US failure to comply with the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute. This failure seriously undermine d the security 
and stability of the multilateral trading syst em.  
1.20.   The representative of the United States  recall ed that Canada ha d commenced a dispute 
settlement proceeding against the United States concerning the use of a differential pricing analysis 
and zeroing.  Canada  had lost that dispute before the panel. The United States was willing, of course, 
to discuss Canada 's concerns bi laterally.  
1.21.   The DSB took note of the statements and agree d to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting.  
E. United  States – Certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping 
proceedings involving China: Status report by the United  States (WT/DS471/17/Add.1 7) 
1.22.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS471/17/Add.17, which contain ed the status 
report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in the 
dispute  concerning certain methodolo gies and their application to anti -dumping proceedings 
involving China.  
1.23.   The representative of the United States  said that t he United States  had provided a status 
report in this dispute on 16 January 2020, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. As expl ained WT/DSB/M/440  
 
- 6 - 
 
in that report, the United States continue d to consult with interested parties on options to address 
the DSB's recommendations.  
1.24.   The representative of China  said that, o n 22 May 2017, the DSB had adopted the Appellate 
Body report and the Panel report , as modified  by the Appellate Body report,  which had found that 
certain measures taken by the United States  were inconsistent with the requirements of the Anti -
Dumping Agreement, which include d: (i) the use of zeroing under the W -T methodology was " as 
such" inconsistent with Article 2.4.2; ( ii) the so -called "single rate presumption " as such violate d 
Article 6.10 and 9.2 ; and ( iii) the "adverse facts available " was a norm of general and prospective 
application which could be subject to future "as suc h" challenges. China wished to recall that, at the  
19 June 2017  DSB meeting , the United States  had stated its intention to implement the DSB 's 
recommendations and rulings in this dispute. However, m ore than 17 months after the expiry of the 
reasonable period of time, China still could not identi fy any concrete implementation action  from the 
United States . The WTO-inconsistent measures had remained intact and continue d to infringe  on 
China 's legitimat e interests provided for in the covered agreements. On 1 November 2019, the 
Arbitrator appointed pursuant to  Article 22.6 of the DSU had determined the level of nullification or 
impairment incurred by China was US $ 3.579 billion. This amount , which was the third largest in the 
history of the WTO, reveal ed the level of hardship which  Chinese workers and companies faced as a 
result of the WTO -inconsistent methodologies used by the United States. While China awaited to 
hear concrete implementations from the Un ited States, China  stood ready to take appropriate and 
proportionate actions to safeguard its legitimate interests in due course. As a matter of fact, the  
failure of the  United States to fulfil its implementation obligation, especially with respect to various 
trade remedy disputes, ha d become a systemic issue. Over the years, rather than fully implementing 
the DSB's recommendations and rulings, the United States ha d chosen to ignore those that  adversely 
impacted its interests. The United States either  had left its WTO -inconsistent measures intact or had 
applied certain cosmetic changes which had not fundamentally removed such non -conformity . This 
left WTO Members no other choice but to repeatedly bring those issues which had already been 
decided before panels and before the Appellate Body. Article 21.1 of the DSU was clear: "[p]rompt 
compliance with recommendations or rulings of the DSB is essential in order to ensure effective 
resolution of disputes to the benefit of all Members ". China urged the United  States to faithfully 
honour its implementation obligation and to fully compl y with the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings  in this dispute without further delay.  
1.25.   The representative of the United States  said that t he United States was aware of the decision 
of the Arbitrator concerning the level of nullification or impairment. China 's decision to pursue that 
arbitration was disappointing, and not constructive. The United States was troubled that the 
Arbitrator had applied an approach to determining t he amount of impact on China that ha d no 
foundation in economic analysis. Specifically, the first step of the Arbitrator 's two -step approach 
necessarily inflate d and overstate d the impact. The United States had explained this to the 
Arbitrator.  Even China had argued against the use of a two -step approach. It was unfortunate that 
the Arbitrator had nevertheless applied its two -step approach over the objections of the United 
States and China. The United States remain ed willing to discuss this matter with Chin a on a bilateral 
basis.  
1.26.   The DSB took note of the statements and agree d to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting.  
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products: Status 
report by Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/Add.1 2 – WT/DS478/22/Add.1 2) 
1.27.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS477/21/Add.12 – WT/DS478/22/Add.12, 
which contain ed the status report by Indonesia on progress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the dispute  concerning importation of horticultural products, animals and 
animal products.  
1.28.   The representative of Indonesia  said that his country  had submit ted this report pursuant to 
Article 21.6 of the DSU. At the present meeting , Indonesia wished to reiterate its commitment to 
implement ing the DSB's recommendations and rulings in these disputes. Indonesia t ook note of the 
continued concerns, especially with r espect to  specific measures , raised by New Zealand and the 
United States at previous DSB meetings. Indonesia also wished to inform that substantial 
adjustments to the Ministry of Agriculture ( MoA) and Ministry of Trade ( MoT) Regulations , which 
were relevant to these disputes , had continually been made . The m easures at issue in these disputes, 
such as : (i) harvest period restriction s; (ii) the import realization requirement ; (iii) the six-month WT/DSB/M/440  
 
- 7 - 
 
harvest requirement ; and (iv) reference price s, had been removed and were no longer in place. With 
regard to  Measure 18, as Indonesia had stat ed at previous DSB meetings, the drafts of amendment s 
to the relevant laws ha d been finalized by the Indonesian Government. As specified in Indonesia 's 
domestic law s and regulation s, any law to be amended had to  be inserted in the list of National 
Legislation Program, a list that was jointly agreed or approved by the Government and the 
Parliament  of Indonesia . Indonesia wished to highlight that the amendment s pertaining to the laws 
at issue in these disputes had already been included in this list. The Government and the Parliament  
of Indonesia  would soon discuss the draft amendment s to these relevant laws. Indonesia would 
continue to engage with New Zealand and  the United States regarding matters related to the  DSB's  
recommendations and rulings.  
1.29.   The representative of  New Zealand  said that his country  acknowledge d the steps that ha d 
been taken by Indonesia and Indonesia 's commitment to comply fully with the DSB's  
recommendations and rulings . Both compliance deadlines that had been agreed between the parties 
had expired. New Zealand was seriously disappointed that full compliance ha d still not been reached. 
New Zealand was particularly concerned about the failure to remove Measure 18 and the continued 
enforcement of : limited application windows and validity periods; harvest period import bans; import 
realization requirements; and restrictions placed on import volumes based on storage capacity. New 
Zealand was also very concerned that, to date, no import recommendations ha d been issued for the 
2020 import period for New Zealand horticultural products. This delay was a barrier to trade. If it 
was not resolved promptly, it could undermine the progress made towa rds compliance to date. New 
Zealand strongly encourage d Indonesia to take appropriate steps, swiftly, to achieve long -term, 
commercially meaningful, compliance with the WTO decision.  
1.30.   The representative of the United States  said that Indonesia continue d to fail to bring its 
measures into compliance with WTO rules. The United States and New Zealand agree d that 
significant concerns remain ed with the measures at issue, including the continued imposition of: 
harvest period restrictions, import realization requir ements, warehouse capacity requirements, 
limited application windows, limited validity periods, and fixed licensed terms. The United States 
remain ed willing to work with Indonesia to fully and meaningfully resolve this dispute. The United 
States underst ood that Indonesia claim ed to have "completed its enactment process " of certain 
regulations, but the United States was still waiting to hear from Indonesia on whether and how such 
action would bring its measures into full compliance.  It also remain ed unclear how Indonesia 's 
proposed legislative amendments would address Measure 18 and when Indonesia would complete 
its process. The United States look ed forward to receiving further detail from Indonesia regarding 
the changes to its regulations and laws, especially with respect to Ministry of Agriculture Regulation 
39/2019 on RIPH requirements and Regulation 46/2019 on Strategic Horticultural Commodities.  
1.31.   The DSB took note of the statements and agree d to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting.  
G./H. Brazil – Certain measures concerning taxation and charges: Status report s by Brazil 
(WT/DS472/16/Add. 2 – WT/DS497/14/Add. 2) 
1.32.   The Chairman  drew attention to document s WT/DS472/16/Add.2  and WT/DS497/14/Add.2, 
which contain ed the status report s by Brazil on progress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the dispute s regarding certain measures concerning taxation and charges.  
1.33.   The representative of Brazil  request ed that the two sub -items under this Agenda item be  
considered together as they pertained  to the same matter.  He said that Brazil had submitted status 
reports in these disputes on 16 January 2020, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. Brazil 
wished to recall that three programmes ha d expired before t he adoption of the reports of the Panel 
and of the Appellate Body . These  programmes were : INOVAR -AUTO, which had expired on 
31 December 2017 pursuant to Law 12,715/2012; PATVD, which had expired on 22 January 2017 
pursuant to Law 11,484/2007; and Digital I nclusion, which had expired on 30 December 2015 
pursuant to Law 13,241/2015. These programmes ha d expired and h ad not been renewed. 
Therefore, there were no further obligations with regard to the DSB's recommendations made 
regarding those programmes. With regard to the findings on "Processos Produtivos Básicos " (PPBs), 
Brazil ha d either revoked or replac ed all implementing orders found to be inconsistent with the SCM 
Agreement . All PPBs currently in effect were consistent with Brazil 's WTO obligations. Brazil ha d 
provided  additional information about  the implementing orders directly to the EU and Japan. As to 
the findings on the Informatics and PADIS programmes, the Government of Brazil ha d enacted 
Law 13.969 of 26 December 2019, bring ing those measures into conformity with Brazil's WTO WT/DSB/M/440  
 
- 8 - 
 
obligations within the agreed RPT. Brazil was, therefore , in full compliance with the DSB 's 
recommendations and rulings in th ese dispute s. 
1.34.   The representative of the European Union  said that his delegation wished to  thank Brazil for 
its status report and for its statement made at the present meeting . The European Union wished to 
resolve this dispute  as soon as possible and was following Brazil's implementation efforts very 
closely. The EU recall ed that the reasonable period of time agreed by the parties had expired on 
31 December 2019. In addition, as agreed between the parties in document WT/DS472 /15, the time 
period for the withdrawal of all of the subsidies that had been found to be prohibited had expired on 
21 June 2019.  The European Union t ook note of the steps taken by Brazil . According to Brazil , these 
steps brought  its measures  into full compliance in this dispute, as set out in its status report  and as 
Brazil had indicated to the EU,  once again , at the present meeting . The European Union recall ed that 
full and prompt compliance pursuant to Article 21 of the DSU require d the withdrawal or modification 
of the WTO -inconsistent measure at issue and that any measure taken to comply also  had to be 
WTO-consistent. All prohibited subsidies had to  be withdrawn "without delay".  The European Union 
was currently analy sing whether Brazil was in full compliance with the DSB 's recommendations and 
rulings in this dispute . The EU  reserve d its position t o take f urther action.  
1.35.   The representative of Japan  said that his country wished to  thank Brazil for its status report 
and for its statement made at the present meeting . Japan reiterate d its call for a full and prompt 
implementation of the DSB's recommendations  and rulings in this dispute , as agreed between the 
parties. Japan recalled that the reasonable period of time had expired on 31 December 2019, and 
that the agreed reasonable period  of time for the withdrawal of the prohibited subsidies had expired 
on 21 June 2019 . Japan also took note of Brazil 's announcement that it consider ed that it was now 
in full compli ance with the DSB 's recommendations and rulings  in this dispute . In this reg ard, Japan 
was still in the process of examining Brazil's announcement . In the meantime , it appeared that the 
Law 13.969 of 26 December 2019 referred to by Brazil in its status report and at the present meeting  
would only  take effect in April  2020. This se emed to suggest that the WTO-inconsistent programmes 
at issue in this dispute were still in effect. Japan asked Brazil  whether it could  explain how this issue 
would be addressed . Japan was also concerned that , under the Law 13.969 , it still appear ed that 
certain requirements to become eligible for tax credits remain ed unchanged under the Law 13.969. 
Japan recall ed that such requirements also  had to  be brought into compliance with WTO rules . Japan 
further  reserve d its position in this respect . Moreove r, Japan was  concern ed that there still remain ed 
certain Implementing Orders in force which  constitute d prohibited subsidies. Japan look ed forward 
to consulting with Brazil so as to ascertain  that Brazil was in full compliance with the DSB's 
recommendation s and rulings  in this dispute . Japan continue d to closely monitor Brazil 's measures 
taken to comply and reserve d all of its rights to take further action.  
1.36.   The DSB took note of the statements . 
I. China - Domestic support for agricultural producers: Status report by China 
(WT/DS511/15)  
1.37.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS511/15, which contain ed the status report 
by China  on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in the dispute  concerning 
domestic support for agricultural producers.  
1.38.   The representative of China  said that China had provided its status report in this dispute in 
accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. After the adoption of the Panel Report, relevant Chinese 
government agencies ha d conducted intensive consultations with the aim of implement ing the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in this dispute. Given the com plexity of  the measures at issue and the 
sensitivity of the subject matter in this dispute, China's internal process with respect to amending 
relevant measures was still ongoing. China would accelerate the internal process and fulfil its 
implementation obl igation in due course.  
1.39.   The representative of the United States  thank ed China for its statement made at the present 
meeting . The United States note d that the parties informed the DSB, on 10 June 2019, that the 
United States and China  had agreed that the re asonable period of time for China to implement the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings would expire on 31 March 2020. China had informed the DSB  
on 17 January 2020  that it ha d been actively studying implementation. The United States 
appreciated China 's statement that it would accelerate the process to amend the relevant measures. 
The United States looked forward to hearing more detail from China on the result of its study , and WT/DSB/M/440  
 
- 9 - 
 
was prepared to engage bilaterally with China on the specific amendments it would make to bring 
its measures into compliance.   
1.40.   The representative of the European Union  said that the  EU wished to thank  China for this first 
status report and look ed forward t o receiving more substantive information on the measures taken 
by China to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings and the timelines for their 
implementation  at future DSB meetings . 
1.41.   The DSB took note of the statements and agree d to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting.  
2  UNITED STATES – CONT INUED DUMPING AND SU BSIDY OFFSET ACT OF 2000: 
IMPLEMENTATION OF TH E RECOMMENDATIONS AD OPTED BY THE DSB  
A. Statement by the European Union  
2.1.  The Chairman  said that t his item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
the European Union . He then invite d the representative of the European Union to speak.  
2.2.  The representative of the European Union  said that his delegation  request ed, once again , that 
the United States stop transferring anti -dumping and countervailing duties to the US indust ry. Even 
if the amounts ha d considerably decreased, the most recent report  under the Continued Dumping 
and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000  (from December 2018 ) showed that amounts were still, in practice , 
being disbursed.  Every disbursement that still t ook place was clearly an act of non -compliance with 
the DSB's recommendations and rulings. The EU renew ed its call on the United States to abide by 
its clear obligatio n under Article 21.6 of the DSU to submit status  reports in this dispute.  The EU 
would continue to p lace this item on the Agenda of DSB meetings  as long as the U nited States  had 
not fully implemented the WTO ruling and the disbursements cease d completely.  This was a matter 
of principle which justified the cost resulting from the application of WTO rules.  
2.3.  The representative of Canada  said that his country wished to thank the Europ ean Union for 
placing this item on the Agenda  of this DSB meeting . Canada agree d with the European Union that 
the Byrd Amendment should remain subject to the surveillance of the DSB until the United States 
cease d to administer it.  
2.4.  The representative of the United States  said that, as  the United States ha d noted at previous 
DSB meeting s, the Deficit Reduction Act – which include d a provision repealing the Continued 
Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 – had been  enacted into law in February 2006, nearly 14 
years ago.  Accordingly, the United States ha d implemented the DSB 's recommendat ions and rulings 
in these disputes. The United States recall ed, furthermore, that the EU ha d acknowledged that the 
Deficit Reduction Act d id not permit the distribution of duties collected on goods entered after 
1 October 2007, more than 12 years ago. Even  aside from this, the United States question ed the 
trade rationale for inscribing this item  on the DSB's Agenda . In May 2019, the EU  had notified the 
DSB that disbursements related to pre -October 2007 EU exports to the United States  had totalled  
US$ 4,660. 86 in fiscal year 2018. As such, the EU had announced it would apply an additional duty 
of 0.001 percent on certain imports of the United States. These minuscule tariffs vividly 
demonstrate d what ha d been evident for years – it was not common sense that was driving the EU 's 
approach to this Agenda item. The EU suggested it had requested the DSB 's consideration of this 
item "as a matter of principle ", but the EU 's principles shift ed depending on whethe r it was the 
complaining or responding party. As the United States had explained repeatedly, there was no 
obligation under the DSU for a Member to provide further status reports on the progress of its 
implementation once that Member announce d that it ha d implemented the DSB 's recommendations. 
The practice of Members – including the European Union as a responding party – confirm ed this 
widespread understanding of Article 21.6. Accordingly, since the United States ha d informed the 
DSB that it ha d come into co mpliance in this dispute, there was nothing more for the United States 
to report in a status report.  
2.5.  The DSB took note of the statements.  WT/DSB/M/440  
 
- 10 - 
 
3  EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES  AND CERTAIN MEMBER STATES – MEASURES AF FECTING 
TRADE IN LARGE CIVIL  AIRCRAFT: IMPLEMENT ATION OF T HE RECOMMENDATIONS 
ADOPTED BY THE DSB  
A. Statement by the United States  
3.1.  The Chairman  said that t his item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
the United States . He then invite d the representative of the United States to speak.  
3.2.  The representative of the United States  noted that, once again , the European Union ha d not 
provided Members with a status report concerning the "EC – Large Civil Aircraft " dispute  (DS316). 
As the United St ates had noted at several recent DSB meetings, the EU ha d argued – under a 
different Agenda item – that, where the EU as a complaining party d id not agree  with another 
responding party Member 's "assertion  that it has implemented the DSB ruling ", "the issue remains 
unresolved for the purposes of Article 21.6 DSU ". Under this Agenda item, however, the EU argue d 
that, by submitting a compliance communication, the EU no longer need ed to file a status report, 
even though  the United States as the complaining party d id not agree with the EU 's assertion  that 
it had complied. The EU 's position appear ed to be premised on two unfounded assertions, neither of 
which was based on the text of the DSU. First, the EU ha d erroneously argued that , where "a matter 
is with the adjudicators, it is temporarily taken out of the DSB 's surveillance ". There was nothing in 
the DSU text to support that argument, and the EU provide d no explanation for how it read Article 
21.6 of the DSU to contain this limitation. Of course, this would be a convenient limitation on Article 
21.6 for the purposes of this dispute, as the DSB had authorized the United States to impose 
countermeasures of approximately US$ 7.5 billion annually due to the advers e effects on the United 
States from subsidies provided by the EU and four member States.  But that limitation d id not exist 
in the text of Article 21.6. Second, the EU once again relie d on its incorrect assertion that the EU 's 
initiation of compliance panel proceedings mean t that the DSB was somehow deprived of its authority 
to "maintain surveillance of implementation of rulings and recommendations ". Yet again, there was 
nothing in Artic le 2 of the DSU or elsewhere that limit ed the DSB 's authority in this manner.  It was 
another invention of the EU. The EU was not providing a status report because of its assertion that 
it had complied, demonstrating the EU 's principles var ied depending on its status as complaining or 
responding party. Perhaps the EU cho se not to report on the progress in its implementation because, 
rather than actually attempt to achieve compliance in this dispute, the EU ha d pursued a strategy 
of endless and meritless liti gation. The recently circulated report of the second compliance panel 
showed how misguided the EU 's strategy was. The second compliance panel, like the prior one, had 
rejected the EU 's claim of compliance. But despite yet another finding of non -compliance,  the EU 
had chose n to appeal the panel report, seeking yet more litigation in this 15 -year dispute. The 
representative of the United States asked the EU whether it w ould not be more productive for the 
EU and its member States to focus on resolving this dis pute. In sum, the US position on status 
reports ha d been consistent and clear: under Article 21.6 of the DSU, once a responding Member 
announce d to the DSB that it ha d complied, there was no further "progress " on which it could report 
and, therefore , no further obligation to provide a status report. But as the EU allegedly disagree d 
with this position, it should for future meetings provide status reports in this  "EC – Large Civil 
Aircraft"  dispute  (DS316) . The EU could report on the progres s in its implementation in this dispute 
in light of the five separate WTO reports finding that the EU and four member States ha d failed to 
comply with WTO subsidy rules.  
3.3.  The representative of the European Union  said that, a s during  previous DSB meetings, t he 
United States had, once again , asserted that the EU was taking inconsistent positions under 
Article  21.6 of the DSU , depending on whether the EU was a complaining party or a defending party 
in a dispute. The United States  also referred to the EU's appeal filed against the report of the second 
compliance panel  as an example of the EU's  "misguided approach" pursuing "endless and meritless 
litigation ... instead of attempting to achieve compliance". Both US assertions were without merit. 
As the EU ha d repeatedly explained in past meetings of the DSB, the crucial  point for the defending 
party's obligation to provide status reports to the DSB was the stage of the dispute. In  the 
"EC – Large Civil Aircraft" dispute (DS316) , the dispute was at a stage where  the defending party 
did not have an obligation to submit status reports to the DSB. As previously mentioned,  in this 
dispute  the EU ha d notified a new set of compliance measures to the DSB. That new set of compliance 
measures had been a clear demonstratio n that the EU – contrary to the United States  in the parallel 
"US — Large Civil Aircraft (2nd complaint)" dispute (DS353)  – was serious about and committed to 
achieving compliance. That new set of compliance measures ha d been subject to an assessment by 
a compliance panel and the panel's report ha d been issued on 2 December 2019. As noted in the WT/DSB/M/440  
 
- 11 - 
 
statement  made by the EU  at the 18 December 2019 DSB meeting, the EU believed that significant 
aspects of the compliance panel's  report could not  be regarded as legally correct . Quite to the 
contrary, they  were very problematic from a systemic perspective in relation  to the assess ment of 
compliance with the subsidy disciplines of the WTO Agreements. It was in order to have these le gal 
errors corrected, and not to continue litigation for the sake of litigation, that the EU ha d filed an 
appeal against the compliance panel's report on 6 December 2019. The EU was concerned that , with 
the current blockage of the two -step multilateral dis pute settlement system, the EU was losing the 
possibility of a proper appellate review of the serious flaws contained in  that panel report. While the 
blockage  of the United States regarding the Appellate Body  continue d, the EU stood ready to discuss 
with t he United States  alternative ways to deal with this appeal. The EU was also committed to 
finding a balanced and negotiated solution with the United States that would allow leaving both 
aircraft dispute s behind. These considerations d id not, however, alter the fact that the compliance 
proceeding in t his dispute ha d not been concluded. Whether or not the matter was "resolved" in the 
sense of Article 21.6 of the DSU remain ed the ve ry subject matter of this ongoing litigation. The EU 
asked h ow it could  be said that the defending party should submit "status reports" to the DSB in 
such circumstances . The EU would be ve ry concerned with a reading of Article 21.6 of the DSU that 
would require the defending party to notify the purported "status of its implementation efforts" 
through the submission of status reports to the DSB, while dispute settlement proceedings on that 
precise issue were ongoing. The EU note d that its reading of the provision was supported by oth er 
WTO Members. The EU 's view was further supported by Article 2 of the DSU on the administration 
of the dispute settlement rules and procedures: where, further  to the disagreement between the 
parties on compliance, a matter was with the adjudicators, it was temporarily taken out of the DSB's 
surveillance. Under Article 21.6  of the  DSU, the issue of implementation had to  remain on the DSB's 
Agenda until the issue was resolved. In the "US — Offset Act (Byrd Amendment)" dispute (DS217) , 
the EU d id not agree w ith the US assertion that it ha d implemented the DSB 's recommendations and 
rulings. This mean t that the issue remain ed unresolved for the p urposes of Article 21.6 DSU. If the 
United States  did not agree that the issue remain ed unresolved, nothing prevent ed the United States  
from seeking  a multilateral determination through a compliance procedure,  asking for a confirmation 
of its assertion that the Byrd Amendment  measure ha d been repealed in line with the WTO findings , 
just like  the EU was doing in the "EC – Large Civil Aircraft" dispute (DS316) . 
3.4.  The DSB took note of the statements.  
4  AUSTRALIA – ANTI -DUM PING MEASURES ON A4 COPY PAPER  
A. Report of the Panel (WT/DS529/R and WT/DS529/R/Add.1)  
4.1.  The Chairman  recall ed that, at its meeting on 27 April 2018, the DSB had established a Panel 
to examine the complaint by Indonesia pertaining to this dispute. The Report of the Panel contained 
in document WT/DS529/R and WT/DS529/R /Add.1 had been circulated on 4 December 2019 as an 
unrestricted document. The Panel Report was now before the DSB for adoption at the request of 
Indonesia. This adoption procedure was without prejudice to the right of Members to express their 
views on the Panel Report.  
4.2.  The representative of Indonesia  said t hat Indonesia 's challenge in  this dispute  had raised a 
number of important issues . The first issue raised was  whether Australia had acted inconsistently 
with Article 2.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement by failing to examine whether domestic market sales 
"permit a proper comparison" and, thus, whether Australia had improperly disregarded domestic 
market sales solely on the basis of finding that a "particular market situation" had existed.  The Panel 
had agreed with Indonesia and had found Australia 's measure to  be inconsistent with Article 2.2  of 
the Anti -Dumping Agreement.  The second issue raised was  whether Australia  had acted 
inconsistently with Australia's obligations under Article 2.2.1.1, first sentence, of the Anti -Dumping 
Agreement by disregarding two Indonesian producers ' recorded costs of hardwood pulp in 
constructing the normal value for those producers.  The Pane l had agreed with Indonesia and had 
found Australia 's measure to be inconsistent with Article 2.2.1.1 first sentence  of the Anti -Dumping 
Agreement.  The third issue raised related to w hether Australia had acted inconsistently with Article 
2.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement in calculating certain Indonesian producers ' cost of production. 
The Panel had agreed with Indonesia and  had found Australia 's measure to be inconsistent with 
Article 2.2  of the Anti -Dumping Agreement . In this regard, Indonesia welcome d the Panel 's findings 
and decisions in this dispute. Indonesia wished  to thank the Panel and the Secretariat for their hard 
work and professionalism in this dispute . Indonesia also wished to thank Australia for working 
together  with Indonesia  in a spirit of co operation in order to reach an agreement not to appeal the WT/DSB/M/440  
 
- 12 - 
 
Panel Report.  Indonesia look ed forward to Australia 's prompt implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings  in this dispute . 
4.3.  The representative of  Australia  said that her country wished to thank the Panel and the 
Secretariat for their time and effort s in this dispute.  While disappointed with the outcome, Australia 
intend ed to work closely with Indonesia to ensure prompt implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings within the fr amework of Australia 's anti -dumping system, in a manner 
consistent with Australia's WTO obligations.  Australia and Indonesia ha d agreed not to appeal the 
Panel Report, and to engage in good faith negotiat ions o f a reasonable period of time for Australia 
to bring its measures into conformity with the DSB's recommendations and rulings, in accordance 
with Article 21.3(b) of the DSU. This was consistent with Australia 's strong support for the rules -
based multilateral trading system.  Australia note d that this di spute had addressed important 
systemic issues not previously considered within the dispute settlement system, notably with respect 
to the interpretation of the phrase "particular market situation" under Article 2.2 of the Anti -Dumping 
Agreement. Australia welcome d the Panel's findings on this issue, which recogni zed that situations 
arising from government intervention could , under certain circumstances, constitute a "particular 
market situation".  Australia also acknowledge d the clarification provided by the  Panel regarding the 
methodologies required to find that a "particular market situation" d id not "permit a proper 
comparison" under Article 2.2, and to construct normal value under Articles 2.2 and 2.2.1.1 of the 
Anti-Dumping Agreement.  Australia would provide the DSB with a further update on its intentions 
with respect to implementation of the DSB's rulings within the time -frame prescribed by Article 21.3 
of the DSU.   
4.4.  The representative of  the Russian Federation  said that her delegation  respect ed the decision 
of the parties to th is dispute  to submit  the Panel Report for adoption by the DSB. Accordingly , this 
Report would be adopted at the present meeting, in accordance with the requirements of the DSU.  
However, the Russian Federation could not help but raise numerous concerns with regard to the 
reasoning and findings of the Panel  in this Report. The Russian Federation believe d that the Panel 's 
conclusions could threaten the security and predictability of the multilateral trading system  and, 
more sp ecifically, the "security and predictability of the reciprocal and mutually advantageous 
arrangements directed to the substantial reduction of tariffs and other trade barriers to trade " which 
was "an object and purpose of the WTO Agreement ".2 In this dispu te the Panel ha d deviated from 
customary rules of interpretation of public international law and , therefore , its interpretations and 
reasoning  were legally flawed . Consequently, this  had led to tainted findings. In its statement , Russia 
did not intend to m ake a full -blown presentation of all the Panel 's errors . However, some of those 
errors  definitely deserve d special attention.  First, the Panel had made several errors in its 
interpret ation of  the term s "particular market situation" (in paras. 7.21, 7.22 (including footnote 59) 
and 7.54 of its Report ). Such errors were illustrated by the following statements of the Panel:  
(i) "while the expression 'the particular market situation ' is constrained by the q ualifiers 'particular ' 
and 'market ', it nevertheless cannot be interpreted in a way that comprehensively identifies the 
circumstances of affairs constituting the situation that an investigating authority may have to 
consider " (at para. 7.21 ); (ii) "the mar ket situation must be distinct, individual, single, specific but 
that does not necessarily make it unusual or out of ordinary – i.e. exceptional " (at para. 7.22 ); and 
(iii) "a fact specific and case -by-case analysis of the particular market situation is necessarily called 
for" (at para. 7.54 ). In other words, the Panel had decided that : (i) there could be several "particular 
market situations " in the sense of Article 2.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement ; (ii) such "particular 
market situations" did not need to satisfy definite or even predictable characteristics ; and (iii) they 
were ordinary and could be found anywhere, should the circumstances of the case be satisfactory. 
In practice, the Panel seem ed to suggest that there were simply no rules g overning the inquiries of 
the investigating authorities into whether there was "a particular market situation ", and the only 
matter that  the Panel  needed to find were facts relevant to the specific case. Should the Panel be 
right, the investigators ' hands would be untied to find dumping where there was actually none . As a 
result, WTO rules would no longer guarantee  access to the markets of other WTO Members to fair -
trading exporters.  It was worth mentioning that the Panel grounded its analysis largely on the 
arguments of the parties and  on circumstances  specific  to this dispute. Nevertheless, even if a panel  
had made interpretations for the purpose of a given  dispute, it would be inadmissible for such panel  
not to ground its interpr etations  in any way on the language contained in  Article 2.2 of the Anti -
Dumping Agreement and in established jurisprudence . A panel should stop its analysis at the point 
 
2 Appellate Body Report, EC – Computer Equipment, para. 82.  WT/DSB/M/440  
 
- 13 - 
 
beyond which  the parties did not make  further inquiries. The requirement of Article 3 .2 of the DSU 
on customary rules of interpretation of public international law had to be respected.  
4.5.  Second, the Panel  (at paras. 7.69 -7.76 of its Report ) had erroneous ly interpret ed the phrase 
"permit a proper comparison " contained in Article 2.2 of the A nti-Dumping Agreement. The Panel  
had established additional tests and assessments which were not envisaged in the text of the Anti -
Dumping Agreement.  For instance, the Panel had stated (at para. 7.74 of its Report ) that an 
investigating authority "needs to determine whether domestic sales of the like product in the 
ordinary course of trade do not permit a proper comparison between the export price and the 
domestic sales price because of the particular market situati on or the low volume". This was an 
example of an inquiry which had not been envisaged in the text of Article 2.2 of the Anti -Dumping 
Agreement. Instead, Article 2.2 stated  that due to a  particular market situation , domestic sales of 
the like product "do no t permit a proper comparison" . Article 2.2 also provide d that one of the 
methods for the determination of the margin of dumping described in this provision had to  be 
applied. Findings which indicated  otherwise , such as that of the Panel  in this dispute , would amount 
to reading into  a treaty words that were not there,  a practice which  the principles of treaty 
interpretation set out in Article 31 of the Vienna Convention neither require d, nor condone d.3  
4.6.  Third, the Panel (at paras. 7.109 -7.118 of its Report ) had come to an erroneous conclusion 
when it had examined "whether the term 'normally ' in the first sentence of Article 2.2.1.1 provides 
a separate basis to disregard an exporter's records ". In light of the arguments of the parties, the 
Panel had concluded that the word "normally " provide d "flexibility " for rejecti ng exporters' or 
producers' recorded costs. This interpretation , in fact , altered the obligation provided for in the first 
sentence of Article 2.2.1.1 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, and with which the Appellate Body had 
disagreed.4 Russia had also f ound that the opinions of the Panel expressed in paras. 7.116  to 7.119 
of its Report  were erroneous . More specifically, a derogation  from this obligation was allowed "on 
the basis " of the term "normally ", i.e. without any explicit provision permitting the derogation. On 
the contrary, current WTO jurisprudence confirm ed that such a derogation from th is obligation could 
be permitted only on the basis of an explicit provision permitting such derogation.5 Should the word 
"normally " serve as a provision permitting a derogation, the two conditions contained in the first 
sentence of Article 2.2.1.1 would become redundant.  
4.7.  To sum up , Russia said that the reasoning of the Panel in this dispute raised serious concerns. 
These concerns were comprehensible. As the Appellate Body  had stated : "[t]he legitimate 
expectations of the parties to a treaty are reflected in the language of the treaty itself ".6 The Panel 's 
conclusion s in this dispute were not groun ded in the text of the Anti -Dumping Agreement  and blurred 
the legitimate expectations of WTO Members.  Russia also wished to note that the Panel's 
interpretation s were specific to this dispute . In practice, should investigating authorities follow such 
cursory interpretation s, Members  would face a growing number of anti -dumping measures that 
would have nothing to do with the actual  dumping margins of the exporters.  The ability of the 
exporters to defend their rights with anti -dumping proce edings  would be  practically nullified.  
Furthermore, the ability  of WTO Members to defend the rights of exporters in WTO disputes would 
also be infringed. In fact, Russia believed that the Panel Report , which would be adopted at the 
present meeting,  would fail to contribu te to an effective dispute settlement  system . As the Appellate 
Body had stated : "the legal interpretation embodied in adopted panel and Appellate Body reports 
becomes part and parcel of the acquis  of the WTO dispute settlement system ".7 This would also be 
the case for the Panel Report in th is dispute  following its adoption at the present meeting . Should 
any future panel search for guidance in the reasoning of this Panel Report , its chances to resolve 
the dispute effectively would also be nullified, and chal lenged anti -dumping measures would , in 
practice , become unchallengeable. Thus, the Russian Federation wished to warn against the systemic 
consideration of this Panel R eport. It should be acknowledg ed that the Panel 's finding s in this dispute 
were specific to th is dispute and, most important ly, that they were specific to the positions of the 
parties  in this dispute . The Russian Federation hoped that future panels would bear this in mind  and 
be cautious when considering this Panel  Report, and that th ey would  avoid repeating the mistakes  
made by this Panel.  At the same time, it was worth mentioning that the Russian Federation was 
unaware of whether any of the parties had considered appealing this Panel Report but had renounced 
to do so in light of the current Appellate Body crisis. Should that have been  the case, this would be 
 
3 Appellate Body Report, India – Patents (US), para. 45.  
4 Appellate Body Report, Ukraine – Ammonium Nitrate , para. 6.87 . 
5 Appellate Body Report , US – Continued Zeroing , para. 286 . 
6 Appellate Body Report, India – Patents  (US), para. 45.  
7 Appellate Body Report, US – Stainless Steel (Mexico) , para. 160.  WT/DSB/M/440  
 
- 14 - 
 
a vivid illustration of the urgent need to restore an effective Appellate Body whose work would raise 
no objection from the entire  WTO Membership. The Russian Federation urge d all Members to 
continue working together to resolve the Appellate Body crisis and to protect the multilateral trading 
system.  
4.8.  The representative of Thailand  said that his country, a s a third party  in this dispute , wished to 
thank the Panel for its clear a nd well -written Report. Thailand recognize d the importance of trade 
remedy disciplines in the rules -based multilateral trading system  and would follow this matter closely 
and with interest.   
4.9.  The DSB took note of the statements and adopt ed the Panel Report contained in WT/DS529/R 
and WT/DS529/R /Add.1.  
5  APPELLATE BODY APPOI NTMENTS:  PROPOSAL BY AFGHANI STAN; ANGOLA; 
ARGENTINA; AUSTRALIA ; BENIN; PLURINATION AL STATE OF BOLIVIA;  BOTSWANA; 
BRAZIL; BURKINA FASO ; BURUNDI; CABO VERD E; CAMEROON; CANADA ; CENTRAL 
AFRICAN REPUBLIC; CH AD; CHILE; CHINA; CO LOMBIA; CONGO; COSTA  RICA; CÔTE 
D'IVOIRE; CUBA; DEMO CRATIC REPUBLIC OF C ONGO; DJIBOUTI; DOMI NICAN REPUBLIC; 
ECUADOR; EGYPT; EL S ALVADOR; ESWATINI; T HE EUROPEAN UNION; G ABON; THE 
GAMBIA; GHANA; GUATE MALA; GU INEA; GUINEA -BISSAU;  HONDURAS; HONG KONG , 
CHINA; ICELAND; INDI A; INDONESIA; ISRAEL ; KAZAKHSTAN; KENYA;  REPUBLIC OF 
KOREA; LESOTHO; LIEC HTENSTEIN; MADAGASCA R; MALAWI; MALAYSIA;  MALDIVES; 
MALI; MAURITANIA; MA URITIUS; MEXICO; REP UBLIC OF MOLDOVA; MO ROCCO; 
MOZAMBIQUE; NAMIBIA; NE PAL; NEW ZEALAND; NI CARAGUA; NIGER; NIGE RIA; NORTH 
MACEDONIA; NORWAY; P AKISTAN; PANAMA; PAR AGUAY; PERU; QATAR; RUSSIAN 
FEDERATION; RWANDA; SENEGAL; SEYCHELLES;  SIERRA LEONE; SINGA PORE; SOUTH 
AFRICA; SWITZERLAND;  THE SEPARATE CUSTOM S TER RITORY OF TAIWAN, PE NGHU, 
KINMEN AND MATSU; TA NZANIA; THAILAND; TO GO; TUNISIA; TURKEY;  UGANDA; 
UKRAINE; URUGUAY; TH E BOLIVARIAN REPUBLI C OF VENEZUELA; VIET  NAM; ZAMBIA 
AND ZIMBABWE (WT/DSB /W/609/REV.16)  
5.1.  The Chairman  said that t his item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
Mexico, on behalf of a number of delegations. He drew attention to the proposal contained in 
document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.16 . He then invite d the representative of Mexico to speak.  
5.2.  The representative of Mexico, speaking on behalf of the co -sponsors of the joint proposal 
contained  in document  WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.16, said th at the delegations in question had agreed to 
submit the joint proposal dated 16 January 2020 to launch the AB selection processes. She welcomed 
Nepal as a new co -sponsor of this proposal. Her delegation , on behalf of these 120 Members, wished 
to make the following  statement.  The increasing  and considerable number of Members submitting 
this joint proposal reflect ed a common concern with the current situation in the Appellate Body that 
was seriously affecting its workings and the overall dispute settlement system against the best 
interest of its Members. WTO Members ha d a responsibility to safeguard and preserve the Appellate 
Body, the dispute settlement  system  and the multilateral trad ing system. Thus, it was the Members' 
duty to launch the AB selection processes , as set out in the joint proposal  before the DSB at the 
present meeting . This proposal sought to: (i) start six selection processes: one process to replace 
Mr. Ricardo Ramírez -Hernández, whose second term had expired on 30 June 2017; a second process 
to fill the vacancy occurred with the resignation of Mr. Hyun Chong Kim with effect from 
1 August  2017; a third process to replace Mr. Peter Van den Bossche, whose second term had 
expired on 11 December 2017; a fourth process to replace Mr. Shree Baboo Chekitan Servansing, 
whose four -year term  of office had expired on 30 September 2018; a fifth process to replace 
Mr. Ujal Singh Bhatia, whose second term had expired on 10 December 2019; and a sixth process 
to replace Mr. Thomas R. Graham whose second term had expired on 10 December 2019;  (ii) to 
establish a Selection Committee; (iii) to set a deadline of 30 days for the submission of candidacies; 
and (iv) to request that the Selection Committee issue its recommendation within 60 days after the 
deadline for nominations of candidates.  The proponent s were flexible in the determination of the 
deadlines for the AB selection processes . However, they believed that Members should consider the 
urgency of the situation.  They continue d to urge all Members to support this proposal in the interest 
of the multilateral trading  system  and the dispute settlement system.  
5.3.  The representative of the European Union  said that his delegation wished to refer to its 
statements made on this issue at previous  DSB meetings starting in February 2017 , and to its 
statement s made in the General Council meetings, including to its statement made at the  WT/DSB/M/440  
 
- 15 - 
 
9 December 2019  GC meeting . From 11 December 2019  onward , the WTO no longer guarantee d 
access to a binding, two-tier, independent and impartial resolution of trade disputes. This was in 
clear breach of the WTO Agreements.  As the EU had stated many times, WTO Members ha d a shared 
responsibility to resolve this issue as soon as possible, and to fill the outstanding vacancies as 
required by Article 17.2 of the DSU.  The EU wished to thank all Members that ha d co-sponsored the 
proposal to launch the AB selection processes  and invite d all other Members to endorse this proposal.  
5.4.  The representative of Canada  said that his country  support ed the statement made by Mexico  
and share d the concerns expressed by many Members on this matter . Canada welcome d Nepal and 
the Republic of Moldo va to the growing list of co -sponsors that sought  the launch of the AB selection 
process es. Canada invite d WTO Members that ha d not yet sponsored the proposal  contained  in 
document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.1 6 to consider joining the 120 Members calling for the launch of the 
AB selection processes. The critical mass of WTO Members behind this proposal was a clear testimony 
to the importance that Members collectively  accord ed to a fully functioning Appellate Bod y as an 
integral part of the dispute settlement system. Canada, therefore , called on the United States to act 
in accordance with Article 17.2 of the DSU and unblock the AB selection process es. The fact that the 
Appellate Body could not  hear new appeals was of great concern. However, Members ' reliance on 
WTO panels continue d to be high, which demonstrate d the value that Members accord ed to 
independent third-party  adjudication through the WTO dispute settlement system. WTO rules 
remain ed in force and binding.  The Membership 's commitment to their observance in good faith was 
at the core of the multilateral rules -based trading system that benefit ed all Members . Canada 
reiterate d that it was fully committed to discussions on matters related to the functioning of the 
Appellate Body. Canada's  priority remain ed to find a lasting multilateral resolution to the impasse 
that cover ed all Members, including the United States. To that effect, Canada called on the United 
States to engage, constructively, in solution -focused discussions. In the meantime, Canada would  
continue its work on interim approaches to safeguard its rights to binding adjudication and access 
to appellate review. In the previous week, Canada and 16 other WTO Members had issued a 
Ministerial statement supporting the prompt finalization of a multi -party interim appeal -arbitration 
arrangement as a contingency measure. Canada invite d Members that value d the binding two -stage 
dispute settlemen t system to consider joining this arrangement as a way to contribute to the security 
and predictability of the multilateral trading system.  
5.5.  The representative of Brazil  said that his country wished to thank Mexico for its statement  
made  on behalf of the co-sponsors of the proposal  contained  in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.1 6. 
Brazil referred to its statements made on this matter at previous  DSB meetings . Brazil look ed 
forward to engaging with all Members and the Director -General in order to find a long -term, 
multilateral solution to this impasse.  
5.6.  The representative of  Nepal  said that his  delegation wished to be associated with the statement 
made  by Mexico on behalf of the co-sponsors of the proposal  contained  in document 
WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.1 6. As a strong supporter of a fair, inclusive and rules -based multilateral 
trading system, Nepal underscore d the need of preserving  the fundamental principles and objectives 
of the Marrakesh Agreement in order to safeguard multilateralism in the interest of all WTO 
Members. Nepal recognized  the role of Mexico and other Members as well as  the effort s of 
Ambassador  Walker  aimed at launc hing the AB selection process es. The dispute settlement system 
was a key pillar of the WTO that aim ed at ensur ing the existence of a rules -based order in the 
international trading system. Keeping this in mind, Nepal ha d decided to co -sponsor the proposal  
and wished to extend its full support and commitment to this initiative with a view to finding a 
solution as early as possible. There were various areas to improve in the multilateral trading system , 
which was  facilitated through the WTO , so as to ensure th at all WTO Members could meet their 
obligations, exercise their rights and benefit from this system. Not only were there systemic issues 
within the WTO : there was also a need to  incorporat e various new subjects in a timely and just 
manner  in order  to adopt to  the ever-changing global trad ing system.  However, before making much 
needed  reforms, before incorporat ing new areas and overcom ing existing problems, Members first 
had to maintain the current system in place and let it function the way  it used to  do so.  Nepal wished  
to express its full commitment to working towards a reform of the WTO and its readiness to engage 
towards  an inclusive, sustainable, just, predictable and transparent multilateral trading system. 
Nepal believe d that such a reform  would be comprehensive with regard to  these evolving global 
challenges , including increased inequality , the incorporat ion of emerging issues and opportunities of 
global  trade in support of weaker economies to integrate meaningfully into the global trading system.  WT/DSB/M/440  
 
- 16 - 
 
5.7.  The representative of Australia  said that her country wished to  refer to its statements made at 
previous DSB meetings on this issue and reiterate d its strong commitment to continue work in 2020 
to advance reform and find a way forward . Ensuring an effective dispute settlement system in the 
WTO remain ed a core priority for Australi a. Once more, Australia asked Members to work 
collaboratively and to demonstrate the necessary flexibility to agree pragmatic solutions in the 
interest of all Members.  
5.8.  The representative of Korea  said that Korea wished to welcome Nepal as a new co -sponsor of 
the proposal  contained  in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.1 6 and expressed support  for the 
statement made by Mexico based on the joint proposal. Korea urge d all Members to engage 
constructively in the relevant discussions to resolve this issue as soon as possible.  
5.9.  The representative of China  said that his country wished to  echo the statemen t made by Mexico 
at the present meeting on behalf of 120 WTO Members . China also wished to welcome Nepal as a 
new co-sponsor  of the joint proposal  contained  in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.1 6. China  
encourage d Members who h ad not joined this proposal to do so in order to demonstrate their firm 
support and strong commitment  to having a  two-tier dispute settlement system within a rules-based 
multilateral trading system. Once again, China  expressed deep regret  at the current  paralysis of the 
Appellate Body  due to the illegal blocka ge by the United States. Article 17.2 of the DSU could not 
be clearer about the Members' obligation to fill the vacancies in the Appellate Body. Yet, the 
persistent blockage by the United States continue d to frustrate the collective willingness of 
163 Members to fulfil such a  legal obligation. Over the past two years, Members ha d made significant  
efforts to address the concerns raised by the United States. Twelve  proposals and a draft General 
Council decision ha d been tabled and vigorously discussed in various  configurations. However, the 
lack of constructive engagement from the United States ha d stifled any potential breakthrough in 
the impasse regarding the  AB selection processes and any improvement o f the functioning of the 
Appellate Body. Ironically, the United States ha d not yet tabled even a single concrete proposal in 
order to address the concerns that it had raised. The vital importance of the Appellate Bod y could 
not be overstated. Indeed, t he current AB crisis was also a  crisis of the rules -based multilateral 
trading system. When the rule of law was replaced by the law of the jungle in the international trade 
regime, every Member would suffer negative cons equences  in the long term. Members had begun 
experienc ing the devastating consequence s of the Appellate Body 's paralysis. Ten pending appeals 
had been  suspended and would remain suspended until the Appellate Body  could resum e its work . 
If the paralysis continue d, another 33 pending panel disputes would similarly face a potential legal 
limbo. China renew ed its commitment to the informal process  on the functioning of the Appellate 
Body. China also expressed  support  for the efforts of Ambassador  Walker as Facilitator  in the 
informal process and for the efforts of the Director -General in addressing the  deadlock  affecting the  
AB selection  processes.  China  believe d that it was equally important to find a timely interim solution 
while the Appellate Body  was paralyzed . In that regard, China and other like -minded Members were 
currently structuring a multi -party appeal arbitration mechanism which could serve as a stopgap . 
The Davos Ministerial Statement was the latest testimony of several Members' strong commitment 
to uphold ing an independent and impartial two -tier dispute settlement system which ensure d that 
disputes could be resolved based on rules rather than power. China welcome d and encourage d other 
Members to seriously consider supporting  this interim option. Last but not the least, institutional 
memory was extremely important to ensur ing the integrity of the rule s-based multilateral trading 
system. China asked that, during th e current  paralysis  of the Appellate Body , the AB Secretariat 
should remain stable and that its structure be maintained according to the Decision on the 
Establishment of the Appellate Body  (WT/DSB/1). The Appellate Body  staff should  also remain 
available at any time and be prepared to work on new cases in a timely manner.   
5.10.   The representative of  India said that his country wished to  refer to its statements made at 
previous DSB meetings on this matter and reiterate d its serious concerns re garding the DSB's 
inability to launch  the AB selection process es. Since 11 December 2019, the Appellate Body was no 
longer available to review panel reports. At present, either appeals were not being filed as a 
compromise even if parties had wished for  panel reports  to be reviewed , or appeals being filed were 
going into the void because of a dysfunctional Appellate Body. Therefore, India called on all Members 
to engage constructively pursuant to Article 17.2 of the DSU to immediately launch the AB selection 
process es as a matter of priority.  
5.11.   The representative of Thailand  said that t he eyes of the world were upon WTO  Members . As 
Members were aware, the multilateral trading system was imperilled. The proper function ing of the 
two-stage  dispute settle ment system, a cornerstone of WTO, ha d come to a halt since WT/DSB/M/440  
 
- 17 - 
 
11 December  2019. This impasse was jeopardiz ing the multilateral trading system as a whole. 
However , the growing of number of co -sponsors  of the joint proposal  contained  in document 
WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.1 6 reflect ed the efforts of WTO Members to resolve this impasse as soon as 
possible. Thailand strongly encourage d all Members involved to increase  their efforts  towards  finding 
a permanent solution.  
5.12.   The representative of Singapore  said th at Singapore  reiterate d its strong systemic interest in 
the maintenance of the two -tier and binding WTO dispute settlement mechanism underpinned by 
negative consensus. Although Singapore was currently working with several other Members on 
contingency measu res in the form of a multi -party interim appeal arbitration arrangement, the 
unblocking of the AB selection process es had to remain the paramount priority for all Members. 
Singapore urged all Members, including the United States, to constructively engage i n finding 
concrete solutions. Singapore also wished to take this opportunity to welcome Nepal as a  new co-
sponsor  of the joint proposal  contained  in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.1 6.  
5.13.   The representative of Norway  said that  Norway had to speak up in defence of the rule of law 
under this Agenda item . Members had entered a new era  in which  the Appellate  Body would not be 
able to function  fully. Members had foreseen this possibility for a long time . It was nevertheless  
disappointing to experience the willingness of one Member to go through with such methods  when  
the 10 December 2019 deadline arrived . Norway's response continue d to be for Members to  focus 
on cooperation and solutions.  Therefore , Norway urged, once again,  the United States  to unblock 
the AB selection processes  and to work with other Members . Norway also urged the United States 
to be open about what it wanted so as to enable Members to find a way together.  
5.14.   The representative of Switzerland  said that her country  wished to refer to its statement made 
on this matter at previous DSB meetings. Switzerland remain ed ready to engage constructively with 
all Members with a view to finding concrete solutions and hope d that this situation could be resolved 
soon.  
5.15.   The representative  of New Zealand  said that his country wished to  reiterate its support for 
the co -sponsored proposal contained  in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.1 6 and wished to refer to its 
statements  made at previous  DSB meetings . New Zealand was deeply disappointed that the 
Appellate Body was no longer able to perform its full functions and would  work constructively with 
Members to urgently address the situation towards a permanent solution, while also engaging with 
several Members  on stopgap interim arrangements.  
5.16.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that his delegation wished to  refer to its 
statements made at previous DSB meetings . Hong Kong, China wished  to reiterate its deep concern 
about  the persistent impasse in the AB selection processes . His delegation took note of the Director -
General's decision to launch discuss ions on resolving the  current AB  impasse . Hong Kong, China also 
wished to emphasize that the discussion on improving the DSU should not  be a reason to delay t he 
launch of the AB selection processes . Hong Kong, China called on  all Members to lift the blockage 
without further delay  in order  to preserve a well -functioning WTO.  
5.17.   The representative of Japan  said that his country wished to refer to its statements made at 
previous DSB meetings. Members collectively recognize d the urgent need to restor e a properly 
functioning dispute settlement system, which would serve the ultimate goal of securing a positive 
solution to dispute s. Japan's priority ha d always been , and continue d to be , to find a long -lasting 
solution to the Appellate Body matter. Members should b uild upon the groundwork they had achieved  
thus far in the context of the informal p rocess  on AB matte rs, and they should focus on the serious  
and ongoing  discussion s on difficult outstanding issues. Members  were entering  a realm of 
uncertainty . However, such uncertainty would also provide Members with a rare opportunity to 
experiment a variety of means to resolve disputes. This could , in turn , provide Members with a tool 
to rebuild a viable and sustainable dispute settlement system that would work to the benefit of all 
WTO Members. In this respect, Japan noted with great interest  that a group of Ministers had issued 
a joint ministerial statement on Friday , 24 January 2020  regarding a so -called "multi-party interim 
appeal arbitration arrangement ". Japan  recognize d the need for a stopgap measure to secure a 
positive and prompt solution to pending disp utes. Japan stood ready to continue  its engagement 
with these Members ' ongoing work  as part of its experimentation . However , Japan believed that any 
attempt to adopt measures of a provisional nature had to serve the ultimate purpose of finding a 
long-lasting solution to the Appellate Body matter . Simply replicating or duplicating the discredited 
Appellate Body would hardly  be conducive to this ultimate goal. As Japan had stated repeatedly, 
Members own ed the system, not vice versa. Through their continued efforts, Members should WT/DSB/M/440  
 
- 18 - 
 
priorit ize and make tangible progress  on finding a long-lasting solution to this matter and to restore 
a properly functioning dispute settlement system as soon as possible .  
5.18.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  said that Article 17.2 of the DSU provide d that: 
"[v]acancies shall be filled as they arise". Therefore, each WTO Member had the obligation to launch  
the AB selection processes . It was also vital to stress the importance of having a fully operational  
two-tier dispute settlement mechanism in order to maintain the rules -based multilateral trading 
system. Therefore, his delegation believe d that each Member should endeavour to further engage  
in constructive dialogue s in order to overcome the current impasse.  
5.19.   The representative of Turkey  said that his country was very concerned that the Appellate 
Body ha d become dysfunctional. As a co -sponsor of the proposal presented by Mexico  and contained  
in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.1 6, Turkey, once again , underlined that Members had to launch  
the AB selection processes. It was a responsibility of all Members, as required by Article 17.2 of the 
DSU. Like other  Member s, Turkey also recognize d the importance of maintaining a two-tier dispute 
settlement system. Members needed a  system which would continue to provide binding adjudication 
and Members should craft ways to maintain such a system . Turkey believe d that the draft  GC 
decision of Ambassador  Walker was a good basis for resolving the impasse. As for ongoing initiatives 
on establishing an interim appeal process, like many other  Member s, Turkey was following the 
discussions to overcome the "lack of appeal " closely . Turkey remained  confiden t that a proper ly 
functioning Appellate Body would  be restore d and that Members would be willing to continue their 
involvement in  discussions such as those  refer to by the Director General at the December 2019  
General Council meeting. Turkey stood ready to engag e constructively to help overcome this impasse 
and invite d all parties to engage in discussions with the Membership.  
5.20.   The representative of the United States  thank ed the Chair  for the continued work on these 
issues. As the United States had explained at prior DSB meetings, the United States was not in a 
position to support the proposed decision. The systemic concerns that the United States had 
identified remain ed unaddressed.  The US view across multiple US Administrations ha d been clear 
and consistent: when the Appellate Body overreache d and abuse d the authority it had been given 
within the dispute settlement system, it undermine d the legitimacy of the system and damage d the 
interests of all WTO Members who care d about having the agreements respected as they had been 
negotiated and agreed.  As the United States had explained, the fundamental problem was that the 
Appellate Body ha d not respected the current, clear language of the D SU. Members could not find 
meaningful solutions to this problem without understanding how they had arrived at this point. 
Without an accurate diagnosis, the Members  could not assess the likely effectiveness of any potential 
solution.  The United States was determined to bring about real WTO reform, including to ensure that 
the WTO dispute settlement system reinforce d the WTO 's critical negotiating and monitoring 
functions, and d id not undermine those functions by overreaching and gap -filling. As discussions 
among Members continue d, the dispute settlement system continue d to function.  The central 
objective of that system remain ed unchanged: to assist the parties to find a solution to their dispute. 
As before, Members ha d many methods to r esolve a dispute, including through bilateral 
engagement, alternative dispute procedures, and third -party adjudication.  Consistent with the aim 
of the WTO dispute settlement system, parties should make efforts to find a positive solution to their 
dispute, and this remain ed the US preference.  And the United States would  continue to insist that 
WTO rules be followed by the WTO dispute settlement system. The United States  would  continue its 
efforts and its discussions with Members and with the Chair  to seek a solution on these important 
issues.  
5.21.   The representative of Mexico , speaking on behalf of the 120 co -sponsors of the joint  proposal  
contained  in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.1 6, regret ted that for the thirt y-first occasion, Members 
had still not been able to launch the AB selection processes and ha d thus continuously failed to fulfil 
their duty as Members of this Organization.  The fact that a Member might  have concerns about 
certain aspects of the functioning of the Appellate Body shoul d not serve as a pretext to impair and 
disrupt its work. There was no legal justification for the current blockage  of the AB selection 
processes, which was causing concrete nullification and impairment for many Members. As 
Article 17.2 of the DSU clearly s tated: "[v]acancies shall be filled as they arise ". No discussion should 
prevent the Appellate Body from continuing to operate fully and Members had to comply with their 
obligation under the DSU to fill the  AB vacancies.  They noted with deep concern that due to the 
continued failure to act at the present meeting , the Appellate Body would continue to be unable to 
perform its functions, against the best interest of all Members.   WT/DSB/M/440  
 
- 19 - 
 
5.22.   The representative of Mexico  said that the joint proposa l contained  in document 
WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.1 6 now  totalled 120 co‑sponsor ing Members and reflected  a cross‑section of 
the WTO Members hip. This underlin ed Members' interest in fulfilling their obligation to fill vacancies 
in the A ppellate Body as they ar ose, in accordance with Article 17.2 of the DSU, and in resolving the 
deadlock that ha d existed for over two years . The number of co -sponsors  also highlight ed the 
Members' interest in the WTO dispute settlement system. Mexico  expressed deep regret at the fa ct 
that Members were in an unprecedented situation whereby  the Appellate Body was incomplete and  
non-operational. All ongoing disputes were being affected by the lack of a fully functioning  dispute 
settlement system . This undermine d the right of all Members to engage in appeal proceedings. 
Mexico urged Members to join the list of co ‑sponsors of this proposal . Mexico reiterate d its readiness 
to work toward a solution  and called for an end to the  current  impasse , which affected the fun ctioning 
of one of the central pillars of the multilateral trading system.  
5.23.   The Chairman  thank ed all delegations for their statements. He said that, a s in the past, the 
DSB would take note of the statements expressing the respective positions, which would be reflected 
in the minutes of the present meeting. He recall ed that, under the auspices of the General Council, 
he had agreed to assist the Chair of the General Council, as Facilitator, in an informal process of 
focused discussions on Appellate Body matter s. Based on his consultations, on 9 December 2019, 
he had provided his fifth progress report to the General Council and, as part of th at report, he had 
put forward, in his capacity as Facilitator, a draft General Council Decision on the functioning of the 
Appellate Body for Members' consideration. The text of this draft decision contained in document 
WT/GC/W/791 had been based on the proposals submitted by Members and the extensive 
discussions in the informal process as well as the feedback that he had rece ived from delegations. 
Unfortunately, no consensus had been reached on the draft Decision  at the General Council meeting . 
It remain ed up to Members to decide what action they wish ed to take . He indicated that b oth the 
Chair of the General Council and himself would be looking to assist Members in these efforts going 
forward in order to find a workable and agreeable solution to improve the functioning of the Appellate 
Body, and that he would continue to do that . Finally, as Members knew, at the 9 December 2019 
General Council meeting, the WTO Director -General  had informed Members that he would be 
undertaking intensive high -level consultations on how to resolve the AB situation . The Chairman  had 
been advised that t hese consultations  had already begun . 
5.24.   The DSB took note of the statements.  
6  MOROCCO – ANTI -DUMPI NG MEASURES ON CERTA IN HOT -ROLLED STEEL FROM 
TURKEY:  STATEMENT BY MOROCCO  
6.1.  The representative  of Morocco , speaking under " Other Business" , said that his country wished  
to make a brief statement concerning the  conformity of the measure at issue in  this dispute  with 
WTO rules . Morocco recall ed that the DSB had adopted the  Panel Report and the Appellate Body 
Report  on 8 January 2020 . In accord ance with  Article 21.3 of the DSU, the Member concerned had 
to inform the DSB of its intentions in respect of the implementation of the DSB's recommendations  
and rulings  at a DSB meeting to be held within 30 day s after the date of adoption of a panel or 
Appellate Body r eport. As Morocco had previously  indicated , the anti -dumping measure at issue in 
this dispute had expired on 26 September 2019. Therefore, Morocco believe d that it was already in 
conformity with the DSB's rulings and recommendations and consider ed, as such, that no further 
action  was required.  
6.2.  The representative of Turkey  said that his country wished to thank Morocco for its statement 
made at the present meeting  in relation to this dispute . As Morocco  had indicated , the anti -dumping 
measure at issu e in this dispute ha d expired on 26 September 2019. As such, Turkey agree d that 
Morocco did not need to take any further action at this time to withdraw the WTO -inconsistent 
measure. Nevertheless, Turkey trusted that Morocco would take the findings of the panel in this 
dispute fully into account in future anti -dumping determinations. Turkey would continue to monitor 
its exports of hot -rolled steel to Morocco to ensure that they were treated in a WTO -consistent 
manner. In this regard , Turkey regret ted that t he anti -dumping measure of Morocco ha d now been 
replaced by a safeguard measure.  
6.3.  The DSB took note  of the statements.  
__________