RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DSB/M/449  
24 March  2021 
(21-2426) Page: 1/18 
Dispute Settlement Body  
22 February 2021   
 
  
MINUTES OF MEETING  
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD  
ON 22 FEBRU ARY 20211 
Chairman : H.E.  Mr Dacio Castillo  (Honduras ) 
Prior to the adoption of the Agenda : (i) The Chairman  welcomed all delegations participating in the 
virtual meeting of the DSB and recalled a few technical instructions regarding the virtual meeting . 
The Chairman recalled that, if a Member was unable to take the floor during the meeting because of 
a technical i ssue, the delegation could inform the Chairman  or the Secretariat , and the Agenda item 
would remain open until the delegation c ould take the floor . In the alternative, the item would remain 
open temporarily, the meeting would proceed to the next Agenda ite m, and the DSB would revert 
to the open item after the technical issue had been resolved . If a technical issue remained 
unresolved, delegations had the option to send their statement to the Secretariat with the request 
that it be read out by the Secretaria t on behalf of that delegation during the meeting so that the 
statement could be reflected in the minutes of the meeting ; (ii) The item concerning the adoption 
of the Panel Report in "Pakistan – Anti-Dumping Measures on Biaxially Oriented Polypropylene Fil m 
from the United Arab Emirates" (DS538) was removed from the proposed Agenda following 
Pakistan's decision to appeal the Panel Report ; and (iii) The Panel Report in  the dispute : "United 
States – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties on Certain Products a nd the Use of Facts Available" 
(DS539) was withdrawn from the proposed Agenda following Korea 's written request to the 
Chairman of the DSB on 1 9 February  2021. 
 
Table of Contents  
1  SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY 
THE DSB  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................  2 
A. United States – Anti-dump ing 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 marketin g of biotech 
products: Status report by the European Union ................................ ................................ ....... 3 
D. United States – Anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large res idential washers 
from Korea: Status report by the United States  ................................ ................................ ...... 4 
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  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  5 
2  UNITED STATES – CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT OF 2000: 
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB  ..........................  6 
A. Statement by the European Union  ................................ ................................ .....................  6 
 
1 This meeting was held in virtual format only following the latest amendments to the COVID -19 related 
safety measures circulated by the WTO Health Task Force.  WT/DSB/M/449  
- 2 - 
  3  EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AND CERTAIN MEMBER STATES – MEASURES 
AFFECTING TRADE IN LARGE CIVIL AIRCRAFT: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 
RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB  ................................ ................................ .... 7 
A. Statement by the United States  ................................ ................................ ........................  7 
4  INDONESIA - MEASURES RELATING TO RA W MATERIALS  ................................ ............  9 
A. Request for the establishment of a panel by the European Union ................................ ...........  9 
5  UNITED STATES – ORIGIN MARKING REQUIREMENT  ................................ .................  10 
A. Request for the establishment of a panel by Hong Kong, China  ................................ ...........  10 
6  APPELLATE BODY APPOINTMENTS: PROPOSAL BY AFGHANISTAN; ANGOLA; 
ARGENTINA; AUSTRALIA; BANGLADESH; BENIN; PLURINATIONAL STATE OF 
BOLIVIA; BOTSWANA; BRAZIL; BURKINA FASO; BURUNDI; CABO VERDE; 
CAMEROON; CANADA; CENTRAL AFRICAN R EPUBLIC; CHAD; CHILE; CHINA; 
COLOMBIA; CONGO; COSTA RICA; CÔTE D'IVOIRE; CUBA; DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC 
OF CONGO; DJIBOUTI; DOMINICAN REPUBLIC; ECUADOR; EGYPT; EL SALVADOR; 
ESWATINI; THE EUROPEAN UNION; GABON; THE GAMBIA; GHANA; GUATEMALA; 
GUINEA; GUINEA BISSAU ; HONDURAS; HONG KONG, CHINA; ICELAND; INDIA; 
INDONESIA; ISRAEL; KAZAKHSTAN; KENYA; REPUBLIC OF KOREA; LESOTHO; 
LIECHTENSTEIN; MADAGASCAR; MALAWI; MALAYSIA; MALDIVES; MALI; 
MAURITANIA; MAURITIUS; MEXICO; REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA; MOROCCO; 
MOZAMBIQUE; NAMIBIA; N EPAL; NEW ZEALAND; NICARAGUA; NIGER; NIGERIA; 
NORTH MACEDONIA; NORWAY; PAKISTAN; PANAMA; PARAGUAY; PERU; QATAR; 
RUSSIAN FEDERATION; RWANDA; SENEGAL; SEYCHELLES; SIERRA LEONE; 
SINGAPORE; SOUTH AFRICA; SWITZERLAND; THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS 
TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, P ENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU; TANZANIA; THAILAND; 
TOGO; TUNISIA; TURKEY; UGANDA; UKRAINE; UNITED KINGDOM; URUGUAY; THE 
BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA; VIET NAM; ZAMBIA AND ZIMBABWE 
(WT/DSB/W/609/REV.19)  ................................ ................................ ............................  11 
7  STATEMENT BY INDONESIA REGARDING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 
RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB IN THE DISPUTE "AUSTRALIA – 
ANTI -DUMPING MEASURES ON A4 COPY PAPER"  ................................ ...........................  15 
8  STATEMENTS BY PAKISTAN AND THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES REGARDING THE 
DISPUTE ON: "PAKISTAN – ANTI -DUMPING MEASURES ON BIAXIALLY ORIENTED 
POLYPROPYLENE FILM FROM THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES"  ................................ ........  16 
 
1  SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB  
A. United States – Anti-dumping measure s on certain hot -rolled steel products from Japan : Status 
report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.2 12) 
 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of the U S Copyright Act : Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/A dd.187) 
 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products : 
Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/A dd.150) 
 
D. United States – Anti-dumpi ng and countervailing measures on large residential washers from 
Korea : Status report by the United States (WT/DS464/17/A dd.34) 
 
E. United States – Certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping proceedings involving 
China : Status report by the United States (WT/DS471/17/A dd.26) 
 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products : Status report by 
Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/A dd.21 – WT/DS478/22/A dd.21) 
 
1.1.  The Chairman  noted that  there were six sub -items under this Agenda item concerning status 
reports submitted by delegations pursuant to Article  21.6 of the DSU . As Members  recalled , 
Article  21.6 requires that : "[u]nless the DSB decides otherwise, the issue of implementation of the WT/DSB/M/449  
- 3 - 
  recommendations or rulings shall be placed on the Agenda of the DSB meeti ng after six  months 
following the date of establishment of the reasonable period of time … and shall remain on the DSB's 
Agenda until the issue is resolved ." Under this Agenda item, the Chairman  invite d delegations to 
provide up -to-date information about t heir compliance efforts . He also  remind ed delegations that, 
as provided for in Rule  27 of the Rules of Procedure for DSB meetings : "[r]epresentatives 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. 
A. United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from 
Japan : Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.2 12) 
1.2.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS184/15/Add.21 2, which contain ed the status 
report by the United  States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in the 
case concerning US  anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from Japan . 
1.3.  The representative of the United States  said that the Un ited States had provided a status report 
in this dispute on 11  February  2021, 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 h ot-rolled steel anti -dumping duty investigation at issue. With respect 
to the recommendations of the DSB that had yet to be addressed, the US  Administration would 
confer with the US  Congress with respect to the appropriate statutory measures that would res olve 
this matter . 
1.4.  The representative of Japan  said that Japan thank ed the United States for its most recent  status 
report and its statement  made at the present meeting . Japan once again call ed 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 Co pyright Act : Status report by the 
United  States (WT/DS160/24/Add.18 7) 
1.6.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS160/24/Add.18 7, which contain ed the status 
report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in the 
case 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 status report 
in this dispute on 11  February  2021, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. The 
US Administration would continue to confer with the European Union, and with the US  Congress, in 
order to reach a  mutually satisfactory resolution of this matter . 
1.8.  The representative of the European Union  thank ed the United States for its status report and 
its statement  made at the present meeting . The European Union wished to make reference to its 
statements  made  at previous DSB meetings and reiterated its wish for this issue to be settled as 
soon as possible.  
1.9.  The DSB took note of the statements and agree d to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting.  
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products : Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.1 50) 
1.10.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS291/37/Add.1 50, which contain ed the 
status report by the European Union on progress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case concerning measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products . WT/DSB/M/449  
- 4 - 
  1.11.   The representative of the European Union  said that the  Standing Committee meeting had 
been held online on 1 6 December  2020, during which  the European Commission presented  two 
authorisations  for a vote .2 The Standin g Committee did not issue an opinion . The Commission had 
postponed the two authorisation decisions to the next online meeting of the Appeal Committee , to 
be held online  on 26 February  2021. The United States frequently refer red to member States ' 
justifications issued during the meetings of the Standing Committee and Appeal Committee as being 
"political " and "not science based ". The European Union underline d that the final decision on the 
authorisation was clearly science -based , as those genetically modified organism s were authorised 
where the European Food Safety Authority ha d finalised its scientific opinion and concluded that 
there were no safety concerns . As repeatedly explained by the EU and confirmed by the US 
delegation during the EU -US biannual consultations held on 2 7 October  2020, efforts to reduce 
delays in authorisation procedures were constantly maintained at a high level at all stages of the 
authorisation procedure . The European Union acted in line with its WTO obligations . Finally, the 
European Union recalled that the EU approval system was not covered by the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings . 
1.12.   The representative of the United States  thanked the E uropean Union for its status report and 
its statement made at the present meeting. The European Union had suggested that, with respect 
to these delays, the fault was with the applicants. However, US concerns related to delays at every 
stage of the approval  process that resulted from the actions or inactions of the EU and its member 
States. Recent outcomes of both the Standing Committee and Appeals Committee on Genetically 
Modified Food and Feed and Environmental Risk Assessment demonstrated the political na ture of 
the comitology process – which repeatedly delayed safe products from receiving approval in the 
European market. EU member States cited the "Precautionary Principle" and "scientific reasons" as 
justification for not issuing approvals. However, those  claims contradicted the fact that the European 
Food Safety Authority (EFSA) had successfully completed a science -based risk assessment for every 
product under consideration at those meetings. EU member States at the Standing Committee also 
cited "no agree d national position", "negative public opinion", and "political reasons" as justifications 
for reaching "no opinion" and for not approving those products. None of those justifications were 
science -based. The Appeals Committee meetings held on 12  November  2020, and 
3 December  2020, which were meant to address those instances where member States reach "no 
opinion" regarding product approvals, cited the foregoing reasons as justification for not issuing 
biotech product approvals. The United States failed to se e how this approval process addressed the 
undue delays contemplated in "EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products " (DS291). The 
United States urged and requested that the European Union move to issue final approvals for the 
remaining products that had completed science -based risk assessments at EFSA, including those 
products that were with the Standing Committee and A ppeals Committee . 
1.13.   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.3 4) 
1.14.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS464/17/Add.3 4, which contain ed the status 
report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in the 
case concerning anti -dumping and countervailing mea sures on large residential washers from Korea . 
1.15.   The representative of the United States  said that the United States had provided a status 
report in this dispute on 11  February  2021, 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  Federal Register 
announcing the revocat ion of the antidumping and countervailing duty orders on imports of large 
residential washers from Korea (84 Fed. Reg. 19,763 (6  May 2019)). With this action, the United 
States had completed implementation of the DSB recommendations concerning those anti -dumping 
and countervailing duty orders. The United States would consult with interested parties on options 
to address the recommendations of the DSB relating to other measures challenged in this dispute . 
 
2 Meeting of 16 December 2020: Maize MZIR086 and Cotton GHB614 × T304-40 × GHB119.  WT/DSB/M/449  
- 5 - 
  1.16.   The representative of Korea  said that Korea thank ed the United States for its status report 
and its statement . Korea again urge d the United States to take prompt and appropriate steps to 
implement the DSB recommendations for the "as such " measure s in this dispute.  
1.17.   The representative of Canada  said that t he United States continue d to fail to comply with the 
DSB's ruling, arising out of the Appellate Body report in this dispute, that the "differential pricing 
methodology" (DPM) was "as such" WTO -inconsistent . The United States ha d also ignored the DSB's 
recomm endation that the United States bring itself into compliance with its obligations . Instead, 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 the inconsistent methodology . The reasonable period of time to implement the 
recommendations relating to the "as such" WTO -inconsistency of the DPM expired more than 
three  years prior to the present m eeting . However, in its most recent status report, the United States 
stated that it continued 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 proceed ings 
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 predictability of the multilateral trading system.  
1.18.   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.2 6) 
1.19.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS471/17/Add.2 6, which contain ed the status 
report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in the 
case concerning certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping proceedings involving 
China . 
1.20.   The representative of the United States  said that the United States had provided a status 
report in this dispute on 11  February  2021, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. As explained 
in that report, the United States would consult with interested parties on options to address the 
recommen dations of the DSB . 
1.21.   The representative of China  said that China thank ed the United States for its status report . 
However, China was  very disappointed and ha d grave concern s about the U S failure to implement 
the adopted recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this dispute . China noted that 30 months 
after the expiry of the reasonable period of time, the U S WTO-inconsistent measures remain ed 
intact . China recall ed that Article 21.1 of the DSU require d the implementing Members to promptly 
comply with recom mendations or rulings of the DSB . China, therefore , urged the United States to 
take concrete actions and achieve full conformity  with WTO disciplines  in this dispute without further 
delay . 
1.22.   The DSB took note of the statements and agree d to revert to this ma tter at its next regular 
meeting.  
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products : Status 
report by Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/Add. 21 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 21) 
1.23.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS477/21/Add. 21 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 21, 
which contain ed the status report by Indonesia on progress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case concerning importation of horticultural products, animals and animal 
products . 
1.24.   The representa tive of Indonesia  said that Indonesia had submit ted its status report pursuant 
to Article 21.6 of the  DSU. Indonesia reiterate d its commitment to implementing the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB in these disputes . Indonesia also continue d to take note 
of concerns raised by New Zealand and the United States on measure s 1-17 in previous DSB 
meetings . With regard to Measure 18 , Indonesia submit ted an  update to the DSB,  that the WT/DSB/M/449  
- 6 - 
  Government continue d to work on the implementing regulations of the Law No. 11/2020 on Job 
Creation . Indonesia w ould continue to engage with New Zealand and the United States regarding 
matters related to  the recommendations and rulings of the DSB . 
1.25.   The representative of the United States  thanked Indonesia for its status report. The United 
States understood that Indonesia had recently amended the relevant laws that would address 
Measure 18. The United State s looked forward to receiving further detail from Indonesia regarding 
these legislative changes and their implementation by the government. The United States remained 
willing to work with Indonesia to fully resolve this dispute . 
1.26.   The representative of New Zealand  said that New Zealand thank ed Indonesia for its status 
report and acknowledge d Indonesia 's reiteration of its commitment to comply ing fully with the WT O 
decision . Both compliance deadlines ha d however, long since expired, and a number of measures 
remain ed non-compliant . This include d Measure 18  and the continued enforcement of : (i) limited 
application windows and validity periods ; (ii) harvest period import bans ; (iii) import realisation 
requirements ; and (iv) restrictions placed on import volumes b ased on storag e capacity . New 
Zealand was particularly concerned that difficulties continue d to be experienced in obtaining import 
recommendations and approvals . Whilst some import licences ha d been issued for 2021, a number 
of applications remain ed unproc essed and the time taken to process licenses was outside of the 
time-frame established in Indonesian regulation s. New Zealand would  be watching closely as 
applications were processed throughout the 2021 import period . New Zealand underst ood that 
Indonesia 's Parliament had passed the Job Creation Bill the previous  year, but New Zealand d id not 
yet have the information necessary to assess what impact this w ould have on Indonesia 's compliance 
with the WTO decision, in particular in respect of M easure 18 . New Zealand invite d Indonesia to 
provide further detail s regarding the changes to its laws and regulations . New Zealand strongly 
encourage d Indonesia to achieve full compliance wit h the WTO decision . 
1.27.   The DSB took note of the statements and agree d to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting.  
2  UNITED STATES – CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT OF 2000 : 
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB  
A. Statement by the European Union  
2.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
the European Union, and invite d the representative of European Union to speak . 
2.2.  The representative of the European Union  said that d espite the US having repeatedly indicated 
that the DSB 's recommendations and rulings were fully implemented by adopting the Deficit 
Reduction Act, disbursements under the CDSOA ha d been made every year since then . Every 
disbursement that continued to take  place under this legal basis was clearly an ac t of non -compliance 
with the DSB 's recommendations and rulings . For this Agenda  item to be considered resolved and 
removed from under the DSB's surveillance, the U nited States had to  fully stop transferring collected 
duties . The European Union would continue to put this point on the agenda as long as the U nited 
States had not fully implemented the WTO rulings , and the disbursements cease d completely . The 
European Union would continue to insist , as a matter of principle , independently of the cost s resulting 
from the application of such limited duties . The European Union renew ed its call on the United States 
to abide by its clear obligation under Article 21.6 of the DSU to submit status reports  on 
implementation  in this dispute, as the issue remain ed unresolved . If the U nited States did not agree 
that the issue remain ed unresolved, nothing prevent ed it from seeking a multilateral determination 
through a compliance procedure . 
2.3.  The representative of Canada  said that  Canada thank ed the European Union for placing this 
item on the agenda of the Dispute Settlement Body . Canada  agree d with the European Union that 
the Byrd Amendment should remain subject to the surveillance of the DSB unt il the United States 
cease d to apply  it. 
2.4.  The representative of the United States  said that, as the United States had noted at previous 
DSB meetings, the Deficit Reduction Act – which included a provision repealing the Continued 
Dumping and Subsidy Offset A ct of 2000 – was enacted into law more than 14 years ago in WT/DSB/M/449  
- 7 - 
  February  2006. The Deficit Reduction Act did not permit the distribution of duties collected on goods 
entered after 1  October  2007, more than 12 years ago. Accordingly, the United States had long ago 
implemented the DSB's recommendations and rulings in these disputes. Even aside from this, it was 
evidently not common sense that was driving the EU's approach to this agenda item. The European 
Union presently applied an additional duty of 0.012% on ce rtain imports of the United States. There 
was no trade rationale for inscribing this item month after month. As it had done many times before, 
at the January DSB meeting, the European Union once again called on the United States to abide by 
its "clear obli gation" under Article 21.6 for the United States to submit a status report in this dispute. 
Notably, the European Union had not called on any other Member in any other dispute to abide by 
this so -called "clear obligation," despite the fact that several Mem bers were in the same situation as 
the United States. As the United States had explained repeatedly, there was no obligation under the 
DSU for a Member to provide further status reports once that Member announced that it has 
implemented  the DSB's recommend ations. The widespread practice of Members – including the 
European Union as a responding party – confirmed that understanding of Article 21.6. Indeed, at 
recent meetings, three Members – China, Brazil, and Australia – had informed the DSB that they 
had co me into compliance with the DSB's recommendations in four disputes (DS472, DS497, DS517, 
and DS529), and the complaining parties did not accept the claims of compliance. Those Members 
announcing compliance had not provided a status report for the present m eeting. This was consistent 
with the understanding that there was no obligation for a Member to provide further status reports 
once that Member had announced that it had implemented the DSB recommendations. The European 
Union was the complaining party in o ne of those disputes (DS472). If the EU believed that status 
reports were "required" under the DSU, it would have insisted that the responding Member provide 
a status report in that dispute, or the European Union would have inscribed that dispute as an ite m 
on the agenda of the present meeting. The European Union had taken neither action, nor had it 
explained the supposed difference between the two disputes. Through its actions, the European 
Union had once again demonstrated that it did not truly believe th at there was a "clear obligation" 
under Article 21.6 to submit a status report after a party has claimed compliance. The European 
Union had simply invented a rule for this dispute, involving the United States, that it did not apply 
to other disputes involv ing other Members . 
2.5.  The representative of the European Union  said that t he European Union recall ed that the CDSOA 
had been  found to be in breach of WTO rules for transferring anti -dumping and countervailing duties 
to the US industry and that the DSB ha d authori zed sanctions on the basis of the US failure to comply 
with the DSB's  recommendations and rulings . That situation  continued to  persist  for as long as the 
redistribution of col lected duties continue d. The circumstance s of this case with regard to relevant 
DSU provisions and procedures were therefore entirely different from those in the case of "Brazil – 
Taxation " (DS472 ). 
2.6.  The DSB took note of the statements.  
3  EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AND CERTAIN MEMBER STATES – MEASURES AFFECTING 
TRADE IN LARGE CIVIL AIRCRAFT : IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 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 a t 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 had not 
provided Members with a status report concerning the dispute EC – Large Civil Aircraft  (DS316). As 
the United States had noted at several recent DSB meetings, the European Union had argued – 
under the previous agenda item – that where the European Union as a complaining party did not 
agree with the responding party Memb er'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 European Union argued that by submitting a compliance communication, the European Union as 
the responding party no longer needed to file a status report, even though the United States as the 
complaining party did not agree with the EU's assertion that it had complied. The EU's position was 
erroneous and not based on the text of the DSU. The EU arg ued that where "a matter is with the 
adjudicators, it is temporarily taken out of the DSB's surveillance" and the DSB was somehow 
deprived of its authority to "maintain surveillance of implementation of rulings and 
recommendations." Yet, there was nothing in the DSU text to support that argument, nothing in WT/DSB/M/449  
- 8 - 
  Article 2 of the DSU or elsewhere that limited the DSB's authority in this manner, and the European 
Union had provided no explanation for how it read Article  21.6 of the DSU to contain this limitation. 
The European Union was not providing a status report because of its assertion that it had complied, 
demonstrating that the EU's principles varied depending on its status as a complaining or responding 
party. The US position on status reports had been consis tent: under Article 21.6 of the DSU, once a 
responding Member announced to the DSB that it had complied, there was no further "progress" on 
which it could report, and therefore no further obligation to provide a status report. But as the 
European Union all egedly disagreed with this position, it should for future meetings provide status 
reports in this "EC – Large Civil Aircraft " dispute (DS316).  
3.3.  The representative of the European Union  said that, a s in previous DSB meetings, the U nited 
States had again stated that the E uropean Union was taking inconsistent positions under Article 21.6 
of the DSU, depending on whether the E uropean Union was a complaining party or a defending party 
in a dispute . The US assertions were without merit . As the E uropean Union had 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 Airbus case, the dispute was at a stage 
where the defending party d id not have an obligation to submit status reports to the DSB . The 
European Union remind ed the DSB that in the Airbus case the E uropean Union had notified a new 
set of compliance measures to the DSB . That new set of compliance measures were a clear 
demonstration that the E uropean Union – contrary to the U nited States in the parallel Boeing -case 
– was serious about and committed to achieving compliance . That new set of compliance measures 
were subject to an assessment by a compliance panel and that pa nel report had been  issued on 
2 December  2019. As noted in their statement at the relevant meeting of the DSB, the E uropean 
Union was of the view that significant aspects of the compliance panel 's report could not  be regarded 
as legally correct  and were very problematic from a systemic perspective when it c ame to assessing 
compliance with the subsidy disciplines of the WTO agreements . It was in order to have these legal 
errors corrected, and not in order to continue litigation for the sake of litigation, th at the E uropean 
Union had filed an appeal against the compliance panel report on 6 December  2019. The European 
Union was concerned that with the current blockage of the two -tier multilateral dispute settlement 
system, it was  losing the possibility of a proper appellate review of the serious flaws contained in 
the panel report . While the blockage continue d, the European Union stood  ready to discuss with the 
US alternative ways  to deal with th e appeal . 
3.4.  The E uropean Union was also committed to finding a balanced negotiated solution with the 
United States that would allow leaving both aircrafts disputes behind them. Those considerations d id 
not, however, alter the fact that the compliance proceeding in this dispute ha d not been resolv ed. 
Whether or not the matter was "resolved " in the sense of Article 21.6 remain ed the very subject 
matter of th at ongoing litigation . How could it be said that  the defending party should submit "status 
reports " to the DSB in t hose circumstances . The European Union would be very 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 proceedin gs on th at precise issue were ongoing . The European Union noted that 
its reading of the provision was supported by other WTO Members . The view of the E uropean Union 
was further supported by Article 2 of the DSU , on the administration of the dispute settlem ent 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 . Instead of 
progressively stepping -up retaliatory measures,  one shoul d step them down . With that in mind, the 
European Union reaffirm ed its determination to obtaining a long -term resolution to the WTO aircraft 
disputes . A balanced , negotiated settlement was the only way to avoid mutually imposed 
countermeasures . The EU 's willingness to find a negotiated solution was shown by the EU notification 
of 21 August  2020 (which was discussed at a previous DSB meeting ) of additional and extraordinary 
compliance measures that withdr ew all remaining subsidies and constitute d appropriate steps to 
remove adverse effects, substantially in excess of what was required by Article 7.8 of the SCM 
Agreement . Those additional and e xtraordinary measures went far beyond what was required in 
order to discharge the European Union 's compliance obligations , as required by Article 7.8 of the 
SCM Agreement . The European Union ha d procured th ose additional, extraordinary and costly 
complianc e measures in an effort to persuade rational and reasonable stakeholders in the United 
States, including consumers, employers, workers, government officials and entities, airlines , and 
other economic operators, that now was the time to draw a line under th ose disputes . It was not in 
the interests of anyone that the European Union and the United States proceed ed to, or continue d, 
mutually assured retaliation, and certainly not in the present  economic climate.  WT/DSB/M/449  
- 9 - 
  3.5.  The representative of the United States  said that  the United States was aware that the EU had 
filed yet another notice of supposed compliance. The United States disagreed that the European 
Union had achieved compliance. Instead, the United States agreed with the second compliance panel 
report, which reje cted the EU's assertions and found that 8 EU launch aid subsidies continued to 
cause adverse effects. The European Union asserted that it had amended 2 of those 8 measures; 
and therefore, it admittedly had made no changes to 6 WTO -inconsistent measures. Un fortunately, 
the amendments the European Union made to French and Spanish A350 XWB launch aid were 
marginal and insufficient to withdraw those subsidies. The European Union had also expressed doubt 
about US compliance in DS353 ( US – Large Civil Aircraft ). But no one could deny that Washington 
State had terminated the aerospace tax break – and the EU had not denied it. The text of the 
measure was public, and its terms had been notified to the WTO and the European Union. This was 
the sole measure found to cau se adverse effects in the compliance proceeding and the sole basis for 
countermeasures authorized by the WTO. As it clearly had been withdrawn, the European Union had 
no basis for countermeasures of any kind . 
3.6.  The representative of the European Union  said that, w ith regard to the additional Repayable 
Launch Investment (RLI) not covered by the EU notification that was mentioned by the U nited 
States, the E uropean Union reiterate d its position , as expressed earlier, that the compliance 
proceeding in this dispu te ha d not been concluded due to the present  blockage of the two -step 
multilateral dispute settlement system . Moreover, some of the measures mentioned by the U nited 
States had actually been amended and the E uropean Union had fully explained this to the Uni ted 
States . Finally, it had to  be noted that the other contested measures relate d to the R LI for the 
development of the A380 aircraft model . It was well known that Airbus decided in 2019 to completely 
wind-down the A380 programme . The last Airbus 380 rolle d out of the production line in Toulouse , 
France,  in September  2020. The production line had been closed and employees moved to other 
operations . The A380 RLI therefore c ould not cause any more adverse effects on the U nited States. 
3.7.  The DSB took note  of the statements.  
4  INDONESIA - MEASURES RELATING TO RAW MATERIALS  
A. Request for the establishment of a panel by the European Union (WT/DS592/3)  
4.1.  The Chairman  recalled that the DSB had considered this matter at its meeting on 
25 January  2021 and had agreed to revert to it, should a requesting Member wish to do so . He then 
drew attention to the communication from the European Union contained in document WT/DS592/3 
and invite d the representative of the European Union to speak.  
4.2.  The representative of the European Union  referred to the EU's statement made at the previous 
DSB meeting on 2 5 January  2021. The European Union urged Indonesia to bring its measures in line 
with its WTO obligations . In order to achieve this the E uropean Union request ed, for the second 
time, the establishment of a panel to fully examine  those measures . This meant  that, pursuant to 
Article 6.1 of the DSU, a panel would  be established at th e present  meeting . 
4.3.  The representative of Indonesia  said that Indonesia regret ted the EU's decision to request, for 
the second time, the establishment of a panel in this dispute . Indonesia believe d that the measures 
at issue were consistent with, and fully justified by, WTO rules and objectives . Nevertheless, 
Indonesia respect ed the E U's decision to refer this matter to a panel and st ood ready to defend its 
measures before the panel . Indonesia underst ood that with this second request, the panel would  be 
established at the present meeting . Indonesia look ed forward to a constructive engag ement with the 
European Union during the panel proceedings . 
4.4.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agree d to establish a panel in accordance with the 
provisions of Article  6 of the DSU with standard terms of reference.  
4.5.  The representatives of Brazil , Canada , China , India, Japan , the Russian Federation , Singapore , 
Chinese Taipei , Turkey , Ukraine , the United Arab Emirates , the United Kingdom , and the United 
States  reserved their third -party rights to participate in the Panel's proceedings . WT/DSB/M/449  
- 10 - 
  5  UNITED STATES – ORIGIN MARKING REQUIREMENT  
A. Request for the establishment of a panel by Hong Kong, China (WT/DS597/5)  
5.1.  The Chairman  recall ed that the DSB had considered this matter at its meeting on 
25 January  2021 and had agreed to revert to it, should a requesting Member wish to do so . He then  
drew attention to the communication from Hong Kong, China contained in document WT/DS597/5 
and invite d the representative of Hong Kong, China to speak . 
5.2.  The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that  Hong Kong, Chi na request ed, for the second 
time, the establishment of a panel to examine the U S revised origin marking requirement , which 
was inconsistent with various provisions under several WTO covered agreements . Despite Hong 
Kong, China 's strong opposition, the Uni ted States had implemented a revised origin marking 
requirement starting from 1 0 November  2020, under which imported goods produced in Hong Kong 
could  no longer be marked to indicate "Hong Kong " as their origin, but had to  be marked to indicate 
"China ". As Hong Kong, China had pointed out at the previous  DSB meeting on 25 January  2021, 
the revised origin marking requirement was inconsistent with, among other  things, the fundamental 
WTO obligation to provide Most -Favoured -Nation (MFN) treatment to all Members . It also violate d 
various provisions of the WTO covered agreements , including the G ATT 1994, the Agreement on 
Rules of Origin, and the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade , as stated in Hong Kong, China's  
panel request . The revised requirement impair ed Hong Kong, China 's rightful and legitimate interest s 
under the relevant WTO covered agreements . Hong Kong, China continued to  strong ly object to the 
imposition of this arbitrary, unilateral, unnecessary , and unjustifiable requirement . Hong Kong, 
China thereby, once again, request ed that the DSB establish a panel with standard terms of 
reference to examine the matter . Pursuant to the DSU provisions,  a panel would have to be 
established by the DSB at the present  meeting . 
5.3.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States regretted that Hong Kong, 
China, had chosen to move forward with a request for panel establishment. In the US reply to Hong 
Kong, China's consultation request, the United States had made clear that the Executive Or der 
identified by Hong Kong, China, had suspended the application of section 201(a) of the United 
States -Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 to section 1304 of title 19 of the United States Code. The 
Executive Order had further determined that the situation with respect to Hong Kong, China, 
constituted a threat to the national security of the United States. The clear and unequivocal US 
position, for over 70 years, had been that issues of national security were not matters appropriate 
for adjudication in the WTO di spute settlement system. The United States therefore did not 
understand the purpose of this request for panel establishment, seeking WTO findings that the 
United States had breached certain WTO provisions. The WTO could not, consistent with Article XXI 
of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, consider those claims or make the requested 
findings. No WTO Member could be surprised by this view. For decades, the United States had 
consistently held the position that actions taken pursuant to Article X XI are not subject to review in 
GATT or WTO dispute settlement. Each sovereign had the power to decide, for itself, what actions 
were essential to its security, as was reflected in the text of GATT  1994 Article XXI.3 Infringing on a 
Member's right to dete rmine, for itself, what was in its own essential security interests would run 
exactly contrary to the efforts to revitalize and reform the WTO that are necessary to ensure that it 
lived up to its potential. There was no basis for a WTO panel to review the claims of breach raised 
by Hong Kong, China. Nor was there any basis for a WTO panel to review the invocation of Article  XXI 
by the United States. The United States therefore did not see any reason for this matter to proceed 
further . 
5.4.  The representative of Hong Kong, China  wished to respond briefly to the US remarks . While 
this was not the right forum for substantive debates on the interpretation and application of specific 
provisions in the WTO covered agreements, he wished  to state for the record that Hong  Kong, China 
disagree d with the US purported reliance on the security exceptions clause under Article XXI of the 
GATT 1994, and Hong Kong, China  consider ed them not applicable to the revised origin marking 
 
3 GATT 1994 Article XXI(b) ( "Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed … (b) to prevent any 
contracting party from taking any action which it considers necessary  for the protection of its essential security 
interests  … (italics added)) . WT/DSB/M/449  
- 11 - 
  requirement at issue . In this regard, Hong Kong, C hina consider ed it necessary and appropriate for 
a panel to be established to examine th is matter , in accordance with the DSU provisions.  
5.5.  The DSB took note of the statements and agree d to establish a panel in accordance with the 
provisions of Article  6 of the DSU with standard terms of reference.  
5.6.  The representatives of Brazil , Canada , China , the European Union , India, Japan , Korea , Norway , 
the Russian Federation , Singapore , Switzerland , Turkey  and Ukraine  reserved their third -party rights 
to participate in the Panel's proceedings.  
6  APPELLATE BODY APPOINTMENTS : PROPOSAL BY AFGHANISTAN ; A NGOLA ; 
ARGENTINA ; AUSTRALIA ; BANGLADESH ; BENIN ; PLURINATIONAL STATE OF BOLIVIA ; 
BOTSWANA ; BRAZIL ; BURKINA FASO ; BURUNDI ; CABO VERDE ; CAMEROON ; CANADA ; 
CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC ; CHAD; CHILE ; CHINA ; COLOMBIA ; CONGO ; COSTA RICA ; 
CÔTE D'IVOIRE ; CUBA; DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO ; DJIBOUTI ; DOMINICAN 
REPUBLIC ; ECUADOR ; EGYPT ; EL SALVADOR ; ESWATINI ; THE EUROP EAN UNION ; GABON ; 
THE GAMBIA ; GHANA ; GUATEMALA ; GUINEA ; GUINEA BISSAU ; HONDURAS ; HONG KONG, 
CHINA ; ICELAND ; INDIA ; INDONESIA ; ISRAEL ; KAZAKHSTAN ; KENYA ; REPUBLIC OF 
KOREA ; LESOTHO ; LIECHTENSTEIN ; MADAGASCAR ; MALAWI ; MALAYSIA ; MALDIVES ; 
MALI; MAURITANIA ; MAURITIUS ; MEXICO ; REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA ; MOROCCO ; 
MOZAMBIQUE ; NAMIBIA ; NEPAL ; NEW ZEALAND ; NICARAGUA ; NIGER ; NIGERIA ; NORTH 
MACEDONIA ; NORWAY ; PAKISTAN ; PANAMA ; PARAGUAY ; PERU; QATAR ; RUSSIAN 
FEDERATION ; RWANDA ; SENEGAL ; SEYCHELLES ; SIERRA LEONE ; SINGAPORE ; SOUTH 
AFRICA ; SWITZERLAND ; THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, 
KINMEN AND MATSU ; TANZANIA ; THAILAND ; TOGO; TUNISIA ; TURKEY ; UGANDA ; 
UKRAINE ; UNITED KINGDOM ; URUGUAY ; THE BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA ; 
VIET NAM ; ZAMBIA AND ZIMBABW E (WT/DSB/W/609/REV.1 9) 
6.1.  The Chairman  said that t his item was on the Agenda of today's meeting at the request of 
Mexico, on behalf of a number of delegations . He then drew  attention to the proposal contained in 
document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.19 and invite d the representative of Mexico to speak . 
6.2.  The representative of Mexico  said that t he delegations referred to in document 
WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.19, ha d agreed to submit the joint propo sal, dated 7 December  2020, 
contained in the same document, to launch the selection processes for the vacancies of the Appellate 
Body Members . Mexico, on behalf of th ose 121 Members , wished to state the following . The extensive 
number of Members submitting  the joint proposal reflect ed a common concern with the present 
situation in the Appellate Body , that was seriously affecting 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  and the dispute settlement and multilateral trading systems . Thus, it 
was their  duty to proceed, without further delay, with the launching of the selection processes for 
the Appellate Body members, as submitted presently  to the DSB. The proposal s ought  to: (i) start 
seven selection processes : one process to replace Mr Ricardo Ramírez -Hernández, whose second 
term 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 expired on 11 December  2017; a fourth process to replace Mr Shree 
Baboo Chekitan Servansing, whose four -year term of office expired on 30 September  2018; a fifth 
process to replace Mr Ujal Singh Bhatia, whose second term expired on 10 December  2019; a sixth 
process to replace Mr Thomas R.  Graham , whose second term expire d on 10 December  2019; and 
a seventh selection process to replace Ms Hong Zhao, whose first four -year term of office expired 
on 30 November  2020; (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 proponents 
were flexible in the determination of the deadlines for the selection processes, but Members should 
consider the urgency of the situation . Mexico stated that they  continue d to urge all Members to 
support this proposal in the interest of the dispute settlemen t and multilateral trading systems . 
6.3.  The representative of the European Union  referred to the EU's statements on this issue  made 
at previous meetings, starting in February  2017 (four years ago), and to the EU's  statements  made  
in the General Council meeting s, including on 9 December  2019. Since 1 1 December  2019, the WTO 
was no longer able to guarantee access to a binding, two -tier, independent and impartial resolution 
of trade disputes . This was in clear breach of the WTO Agreements . As the European Union  had WT/DSB/M/449  
- 12 - 
  stated  on numerous occasions,  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 
European Union renew ed its call on all WTO Members to engage in a constructive discussion so that 
the vacancies c ould be filled as soon as possible . The European Union  thank ed all Members that 
co-sponsored the proposal to launch the appointmen t proces ses and invite d all other Members to 
endorse th e proposal . 
6.4.  The representative of Korea  said that Korea note d that Members ha d continuously voiced  their 
concerns over the impasse of the Appellate Body and the urgency to revive the two -tier dispute 
settlement system . Korea support ed the statement made by Mexico based on the joint proposal and 
urged all Members to engage constructively in the relevant discussions to resolve this important 
issue as soon as possible.  
6.5.  The representative of India referred to India's  statements made on this issue at previous DSB 
meetings . India strongly believe d in a two -tier, independent and impartial dispute settlement system 
as agreed by Members in the DSU . India therefore support ed the proposal and request ed all WTO 
Memb ers to resolve the appointment of Appellate Body members and  to start work ing on filling the 
outstanding vacancies as set out in Article 17.2 of the DSU . 
6.6.  The representative of Indonesia  referred to Indonesia 's previous statements delivered at 
previous DSB meetings with regard to similar agenda  items . It was undeniable that the present  crisis 
surrounding the appointment of the Appellate Body members ha d resulted in the inability of the 
Appellate Body to hear and  considered  the appealed cases in the WTO . Nevertheless, this matter 
was again on the DSB Agenda in order to once again make a call for the immediate launch of the AB 
selection  processes . In this regard, Indonesia  believe d that immediate work to bring the Appellate 
Body back into th e Organization w ould be imperative to secure predictability to global trade . The 
resolution of this matter  should remain Members'  priority . While offering Indonesia 's long -standing 
commitment to constructively engage and contribute to the effort to solve this issue, Indonesia  once 
again urge d all Members to give their serious attention , willingness and commitment to the 
immediate appointment of the Appellate Body members . 
6.7.  The representative of China  said that China  support ed the statement made by Mexico on behalf 
of the 121 Members who sponsored th e proposal . China referred to its previous statements made 
on this important matter and reiterate d its firm support to preserve a two-tier independent and 
impartial dispute settlement system . Maintaining a standing Appellate Body was a legal duty 
shouldered collectively by the entire Membership . Nothing could serve as an excuse  to neglect this 
important treaty obligation . As many Members had noted, the continuation of paralysis undermined 
the confidence and trust that Members attached to the dispute settlement system . A dysfunctional  
Appellate Body had increasingly become a loop hole for rule s enforceability, which in turn seriously 
undermined the security of the multilateral trading system and had an impact on  Members ' interest  
towards  new rule s negotiations . Time was of the essence . Swiftly launching the selection process es 
and restoring the operation of the Appellate Body  should remain the top priority of the entire 
Membership . Although there might be no easy fix, China  firmly believe d that an open, transparent, 
solution -based consultation s with the constructive participation of  all Members was the only way 
forward . China believed that t he Walker process should continu e as a valuable platform for future 
discussions . China renew ed its commitment to the two-tier independent and impartial dispute 
settlement  system  and s tood ready to further engage with Members on this urgent matter . 
6.8.  The representative of Hong Kong, China  expressed Hong Kong, China's  continued support for 
Mexico 's statement , made on behalf of the co -sponsors, including Hong Kong, China . Hong Kong, 
China  reiterated its concerns over the lack of progress in resolving the Appellate Body 's impasse  and 
reiterate d the importance of resuming the full functioning of the two -tier dispute settlement 
mechanism . The AB selection process es should commence without any further delay . Hong Kong, 
China  urged Members to continue with the ir efforts and constructive engagement until a solution 
was found . 
6.9.  The representative of Japan  referred to Japan's  statements made at previous DSB meetings . 
Japan support ed the proposal  and shared a  sense of urgency with other WTO Members, towards an 
expeditious reform of the dispute settlement system of the WTO . As mentioned at previous  DSB 
meetings, Japan's  top priority was to reform the WTO dispute settlement system in a manner that 
would serve to achieve a long -lasting solution to the  Appellate Body matters . To that end, Japan 
consider ed it essential that Members, as the owners of the dispute settlement system, participate d WT/DSB/M/449  
- 13 - 
  actively in discussions o n reform s of the system . Furthermore, Members should  seriously deal with  
the current  situation that the Appellate Body was virtually non -operational, and that cases continued 
to be appealed into the void . Therefore,  Japan spare d no efforts to collaborate w ith other WTO 
Members  on these  matter s. 
6.10.   The representative of South Africa  said that South Africa support ed the statement by Mexico 
on behalf of the 121 co -sponsors of th e proposal . South Africa  also support ed the statement to be 
made by the African Group . South Africa recalled its  previous statements on this issue . A functional 
dispute settlement mechanism was the cornerstone of the multilateral trading system and was 
essential to the functioning of the WTO . The restoration of an independent and impartial two -stage 
dispute settlement system was critical in ensuring the effective resolution of disputes in the WTO . 
South Africa  emphasize d the need to resolve the current  impasse urgently and find a permanent 
solution to the appointment of the members of the Appellate Body . South Africa  therefore call ed on 
all Members to ensure that they discharge their collective duty to select and appoint Appellate Body 
members as soon as possible . The resumption of the appointmen t process es of the Appellate Body 
members had to remain a priority for all WTO Members . South Africa  therefore call ed on all Member s 
to engage in a solution -oriented process in order to  restore the Appellate Body as soon as possible . 
6.11.   The representative of the United Kingdom  said that t he United Kingdom continue d its support 
for this proposal for the launch of the selection processes . The United Kingdom support ed a fully 
functioning dispu te settlement system as the best means of enforcing the rules Members  had 
negotiated, ensuring the fair resolution of disagreements and preventing recourse to unilateral 
measures . Members  had to commit themselves fully and collectively to the task of refor m in order 
to ensure that the WTO remain ed relevant and respected . The United Kingdom s tood ready to engage 
with all Members in solutions -based discussions on dispute settlement reform s. 
6.12.   The representative of Nigeria , speaking on behalf of the African Group , said that t he African 
Group refer red to its previous statements made  on this very important issue . The African Group  
joined others in thanking the delegation of Mexico for their statement on the proposal for Appellate 
Body appointments . The African Group continue d to regret that up until now, the DSB ha d failed in 
the performance of its functions under Article 17.2 of the DSU , which clearly was in breach of the 
rules despite the overwhelming number of Members submitting th e joint proposal . The fact that the 
Appellate Body could not hear new appeals remain ed a concern to all  Members . Members  had a 
shared responsibility under the DSU, to safeguard the two -tier dispute settlement system . During 
the previous  special General Council meeting, the ne w DG of the WTO called on Members to make 
every effort to strengthen the dispute settlement system . The African Group was fully in support of 
her call . Therefore, the Group urge d the DSB to urgently meet its obligation under the DSU , which 
was to fill vaca ncies as they ar ose, as contained in this proposal for Appellate Body appointments , 
so as to maintain the two -tier dispute settlement system in order to ensure predictability within the 
multilateral trading system . Finally, the African Group  urged all Members to engage constructively 
with each other in addressing the specific concerns raised against the functioning of the Appellate 
Body, with a view to find ing a suitable compromise in this regard . The African Group  believ ed that 
procedural issues might be addressed along with substantive issues . The African Group  urged all 
Members  to endorse the p roposal as soon as possible . The African Group  stood ready to engage 
constructively with all Members in th at regard . 
6.13.   The representative of the United State s said that the United States was not in a position to 
support the proposed decision. The United States continued to have systemic concerns with the 
Appellate Body. As Members knew, the United States had raised and explained its systemic concerns 
for more than 16 years and across multiple US  Administrations. The United States looked forward 
to further discussions with Members on those concerns . 
6.14.   The representative of Brazil  said that  Brazil thank ed Mexico for introducing the proposal on 
behalf of the co -sponsors . Brazil refer red to its previous statements and as always w as ready to 
work with all Members in order to find a sustainable solution to th e current blockage . 
6.15.   The representative of Norway  said that , at the end of 2020 , Norway  had noted with 
disappointment that Members  had entered a new era , namely an era where the Appellate Body was 
no longer able to perform its function s. Norway had responded to that by calling on the United States 
to unblock the appointments  and had insisted on tackling disruptive strategies through efforts to 
cooperate and find solutions . In the beginning of 2021, however,  Norway  sense d that Members may 
be entering yet another era, where such efforts could – if Member s cooperate d well – deliver WT/DSB/M/449  
- 14 - 
  multilateral results . Norway  continued to call for the unblocking of AB appointments  and believed 
that this time the message was more tangible . Norway called o n Members  to come together  and 
said that with  unity Members could  achieve great things.  
6.16.   The representative of Switzerlan d referred to the statements made  by her country  during 
previous DSB meetings . Switzerland's  determination to resolve the present  impasse remain ed solid 
and Switzerland  invite d all Members to make constructive contribution s to try to find a solution . 
Switzerland  hoped that a solution to this matter would be found as quickly as possible . Switzerland's 
priority was that the Appellate Body c ould work again smoothly to take into acc ount the interests of 
all Members as quickly as possible . Switzerland was  ready to work towards that objective along with 
other Members . 
6.17.   The representative of Canada  said that  Canada support ed the statement made by Mexico and 
share d the concerns expressed by other Members at the present meeting . Canada  invite d those WTO 
Members who ha d not yet endorsed the proposal to join the 121 Members who were calling for the 
selection process to be launche d. The critical mass of WTO Members who support ed the initiative 
were a clear testimony to the importance that all Members accord ed to a fully functioning Appellate 
Body as an integral part of the dispute settlement system . The fact that the Appellate Body  could 
not hear new appeals was very worrying . Canada  noted that the United States was in a period of 
transition as the new US administration was put in place . Canada reaffirm ed its full commitment to 
participating in discussions aimed at identifying solut ions regarding the functioning of the Appellate 
Body. Canada  indicated that it would be delighted for the United States to commit to th ose 
discussions and invite d them to do so . Canada's  priority remain ed finding a lasting multilateral 
solution that involv ed all Members, including the United States . In the meantime, Canada and 
24 other WTO Members ha d endorsed the Multi -Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement 
(MPIA) as a contingency measure to safeguard their rights to binding two -stage dispute settlement 
in disputes amongst themselves . The MPIA was open to all WTO Members . Canada invite d all WTO 
Members to consider joining the MPIA to safeguard their dispute settlement rights to the greatest 
extent possible until Members collectively f ound a per manent solution to the AB impasse . Canada 
remain ed available to discuss the MPIA with any interested Member.  
6.18.   The representative of Iceland  said that  Iceland fully support ed the statement made  by Mexico . 
As a small country and an open economy, Iceland was a strong supporter of the global framework 
governing international trade , which was based  on the rule of law principle . Iceland  viewed the 
WTO's two -step dispute settlement mechanism as playing a central role in providing predictability 
within that system and securing a fair playing field for all participating Members . The Organization 's 
long-time lack of progress in filling the vacancies of the Appellate Body was therefore a source of 
grave concern for Iceland . Once again, Iceland  called on all Memb ers to engage in a constructive 
manner to solve this impasse and to do so without further delay . 
6.19.   The representative of Thailand  said that Thailand support ed the statement made by Mexico 
on behalf of the co -sponsors . Thailand, like other co -sponsors, ha d strongly advocated for a solution 
to the Appellate Body impasse . Thailand had observed the continued filing of appeals by Members 
before  the Appellate Body, demonstrating the importance of the two -tiered dispute settlement 
system . The appointment of a new D irector -General  on 15 February  2021 at the General Council 
special meeting  had given some positive news as well as much needed fresh perspective and 
guidance . Given her priority on sol ving the  AB impasse, it renew ed optimism among Members . In 
this context, Thailand  looked forward to working with all Members and the new D irector -General  to 
reach a solution and bring back the full function of  the Appellate Body . 
6.20.   The representative of New Zealand  said that New Zealand r eiterate d its support for the 
co-sponsored proposal and refer red to its previous statements  made on this m atter. New Zealand  
continue d to urge all Members to engage, constructively, on the issues with a view to urgently 
addressing this serious situation . Following the appointment of the WTO Director -General, the year 
ahead present ed an opportunity for Members  to refocus their collective effort s on finding a solution 
that works for all Members . 
6.21.   The representative of the Russian Federation  said that t he Russi an Federation thank ed Mexico 
for its statement made on behalf of the co -sponsors . The Russian Federation  referred to its previous 
statements with respect to the issue of appointment of Appellate Body members, its critical state 
and negative consequences fo r the dispute settlement mechanism and multilateral trading system . 
The Russian Federation reiterate d its commitment to engag ing in a constructive dialogue with all WT/DSB/M/449  
- 15 - 
  WTO Members towards resolution of the crisis and restoration of an effectively functioning Appellate 
Body. The Russia n Federation' s top -priority was to immediately launch the appointment of the 
Appellate Body members . At the same time, the Russian Federation was  determined to participate 
constructively in any negotiations on the Appellate Body reform . 
6.22.   The representative of Singapore  thanked  Mexico for its statement, which Singapore  
support ed. Singapore refer red to its past statements and wishe d to reiterate its strong systemic 
interest in maintaining the two -tier binding WTO dispute settlement mechanism that was 
underpinned by negative consensus . The unblocking of the Appellate Body selection process es had 
to remain the paramount priority for all Members . Singapor e urged all Members, including the United 
States, to constructively engage in finding a lasting multilateral solution . Singapore  also look ed 
forward to the engagement of the new D irector -General  in Members'  discussions  on this matter.  
6.23.   The representative of Turke y thank ed Mexico for tabling th e proposal on behalf of the 
co-sponsors . Like others, Turkey recognize d the importance of maintaining the two-tier dispute 
settlement system and underline d the urgent need to start the selection proces ses for the AB 
vacancies . Turkey also consider ed it important and necessary to resume multilateral discussions on 
crafting ways to improve the current system and address the concerns of members . For this, Turkey 
still considered  the Walker process as a goo d basis to advance such discussions . Turkey st ood ready 
to engage constructively to help overcome th e impasse and invite d all parties to engage in 
discussions with the Membership . 
6.24.   The representative of Mexico , speaking on behalf of the 121 co -sponsors, regre tted that for 
the fortieth occasion, Members had  still not been able to start the selection processes for the 
vacancies of the Appellate Body and ha d thus continuously failed to fulfil their duty as Members of 
this Organization . The fact tha t a Member may have  had concerns about certain aspects of the 
functioning of the Appellate Body c ould not  serve as a pretext to impair and disrupt the work of th e 
DSB and dispute settlement in general . There was no legal justification for the  presen t impas se in 
the selection processes, which was causing concrete nullification and impairment for many Members . 
As Article 17.2 of the DSU clearly state d, "vacancies shall be filled as they arise ". No discussion 
should have prevent ed the Appellate Body from continuing to operate fully and Members  had to  
comply with their obligation under the DSU to fill the vacancies . Mexico noted with deep concern 
that by failing to act at the present meeting , the Appellate Body w ould continue to be unable to 
perform its functions against the best interest of all Members.  
6.25.   The representative of Mexico  said that her country wished to  refer to its previous statements 
on this matter . For more than two years Mexico's  deep concern continue d as Members  were faced 
with an unprecedented situation with a non-existent  Appellate Body . All ongoing disputes were 
affected by not having a fully functioning dispute settlement system, undermining the right of all 
Members to have a two -tier dispute settlement system , and putting at risk the prompt compliance 
with panel reports  adopted by the DSB . The proposal submitted to the DSB at the present meeting , 
supported by 121 Members was requesting the launch of the AB processes to fill the seven vacancies 
in the App ellate Body . The situation was not sustainable and Members  should not get accustomed 
to the status quo . That was why Mexico  urgently call ed on Members who ha d not done so to join th e 
proposal . Mexico remain ed ready to work constructively with concrete prop osals in order to reach a 
concrete  solution . 
6.26.   The Chairman  thank ed all delegations for their statements . He said that, a s in the past, the 
DSB w ould take note of the statements expressing the ir respective positions, which w ould be 
reflected in the minutes of th e present meeting . As Members were  aware, this matter require d a 
political engagement on the part of all WTO Members.  
6.27.   The DSB took note  of the statements.  
7   STATEMENT BY INDONESIA REGARDING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 
RECOMME NDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB IN THE DISPUTE "AUSTRALIA – 
ANTI -DUMPING MEASURES ON A4 COPY PAPER"  (DS529)  
7.1.  The representative of Indonesia , speaking under "Other Business",  said that Indonesia,  once 
again, regret ted the fact that Australia ha d yet to provide a status report to th e DSB on the 
implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings in DS529 : "Australia – Anti–Dumping WT/DSB/M/449  
- 16 - 
  Measures on A4 Copy Paper ." Indonesia note d Australia 's statement in the previous DSB meeting 
that "[t]he Review P anel is due to provide its report and recommendations to the Minister before 
18 January  2021 and in usual circumstances, the Minister will then have 30 days to make a decision ". 
Indonesia was pleased that the Minister recently affirmed the decision of the Australian 
Anti-Dumping Commission . However, Indonesia 's understanding was that the Minister 's decision 
could be appealed to the Federal Court of Australia and that the deadline for doing so was not until 
sometime in the middle of March . Indonesia remain ed concerned about the possibility that a court 
decision could change or revoke the decision terminating the anti -dumping measure s against 
Indonesian producers of A4 copy paper in relation to the implementation of the rulings and 
recommendation s of the Panel  in DS529 . Indonesia believe d that the effect of such change or 
revocation would not be in line with Australia 's obligation s under the WTO Anti -Dumping Agreement  
and would  affect Indonesia 's exports of A4 copy paper to the Australian market . Indonesia, therefore, 
strongly encourage d Australia to provide status report s to the DSB  until the issue was resolved , and 
urged Australia to ensure that all of its measures compl ied with the DSB 's recommendations and 
rulings of the Panel in DS529 . Indonesi a stood ready to communicate and work closely with Australia 
to resolve this matter , with  a view to achiev ing a mutually satisfactory solution , in accordance with 
the DSU . 
7.2.  The representative of Australia  said that, a s Australia had notified to the DSB in 
September  2020, the anti -dumping measures at issue in this dispute were revoked on 
11 September  2020. The revocation of the relevant measures brought Australia into full compliance 
with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB . This revocation was affirmed by the Minister on 
16 February  2021, following the completion of an administrative review process . As Indonesia ha d 
noted, Australia 's system also provide d procedures for judicial review – consistent ly with Article 13 
of the WTO Anti -Dumping Agree ment. Since the relevant measures no longer appl ied – something 
that Indonesia d id not contest – Australia ha d no further compliance update to report to the DSB . 
Australia would  continue to engage constructively with Indonesia, as required, in relation to 
Australia 's compliance in this matter . 
7.3.  The DSB took note of the statements.  
8  STATEMENTS BY PAKISTAN AND THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES REGARDING THE 
DISPUTE ON: "PAKISTAN – ANTI -DUMPING MEASURES ON BIAXIALLY ORIENTED 
POLYPROPYLENE FILM FROM THE UNITED ARAB EMIRAT ES" (DS538)  
8.1.  The representative of Pakistan , speaking under "Other Business", said that Pakistan wishes to 
make a statement following its Notice of Appeal o f the Panel Report in the dispute DS538 , "Pakistan 
– Anti-Dumping Measures on Biaxially Oriented Polypropylene Film from the United Arab Emirates" . 
Pakistan  extend ed its thanks to the Panel and its members as well as to the WTO Secretariat who 
assisted the Panel in this dispute, especially in the difficult circum stances caused by the COVID -19 
pandemic . In its Report circulated on 1 8 January  2021, the Panel had agreed with Pakistan in several 
instances, especially regarding the determination of the dumping . Some of the other findings 
reflect ed procedures that were already amended after the investigation at issue in this case and that 
no longer form ed part of Pakistan 's anti -dumping laws and practices . In certain other instances, 
however, Pakistan disagree d with the Panel 's legal interpretations  and felt compelled to seek review 
of those legal interpretations through an appeal . For instance, the Panel had found that Article 3.4 
of the Anti -Dumping Agreement require d an investigating authority to "examine the impact of the 
dumped imports on the do mestic industry ", such that "an investigating authority is required to 
identify the trends in the injury factors and place those trends in the relevant context that is 
informative of the injury suffered by the domestic industry ". This finding create d a cau sation 
requirement under Article 3.4 (in addition to that under Article 3.5)  and add ed to the analytical 
workload required of the investigating authority . In another instance, Pakistan believe d that the 
Panel had erred in its interpretation of the term "known" in Article 3.5 , in deciding that the main 
UAE investigated company – Taghleef  – had submitted enough information to make these factors 
"known" to the NTC in such a manner as to trigger an obligation for the authority to examine them . 
Finally, Pakistan fel t that the Panel erred in finding that, in the Sunset Review, the NTC acted 
inconsistently with Article 11.3 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement by relying on a dumping margin that 
was inconsistent with Article 2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement . Here, the interpretation of 
Article  11.3 limit ed the scope of actions of investigating authoriti es to determine the likelihood of 
dumping . These and  similar instances ha d, therefore, compelled Pakistan to exercise its rights under 
the DSU and file an appeal pursuant to Rule 20 of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review . On 
22 February  2021, Pakistan had  submitted a proper Notice of Appeal as well as full Appellant 's WT/DSB/M/449  
- 17 - 
  Submission, as required under the relevant procedures . Pakistan was a strong supporter of the 
two-tiered dispute settlement system laid out in the DSU . Pakistan ha d also co -sponsored t he 
proposal by Mexico and 121 other Members calling for the restoration of the Appellate Body and 
Pakistan  had endorse d the statement made earlier under the agenda item concerning the Appellate 
Body Appointments  proposal . However, the right to appeal was the right of every WTO Member . 
While the structure of the appellate system exist ed, it ha d been rendered dysfunctional due to 
reasons the Members had  debated elsewhere . This development d id not preclude Pakistan from 
exercis ing its right s when aggrieved and from believing and having faith, as Pakistan did , that the 
collective efforts of the WTO Members could  soon find appropriate ways to restore the Appellate 
Body to a functional state again . This was the reason Pakistan ha d chosen to follow due procedure 
and protocol by submitting a proper Notice of Appeal as well as an Appellant's Submission, and not 
just a placeholder . It was for the same reason that Pakistan ha d also endorsed and joined the 
Multi-Party Appeal Arbitration ( MPIA) mechanism , to keep the system running pending the eventual 
restoration of the appellate review mechanism to its functional state . Pakistan was always open  to 
finding amicable resolutions to disputes , including the current one , and ha d made every effo rt 
towards making this happen at every step in this dispute . At the same time, Pakistan remain ed 
aware of its rights and obligations as a responsible WTO Member . Very recently, the delegation of 
Pakistan had  received information from its Capital that the UAE wishe d to resolve this matter 
bilaterally in an amicable manner . Pakistan welcome d this development and await ed further details . 
8.2.  The representative of the United Arab Emirates  said that the  United Arab Em irates had 
requested the DSB to consider at the present meeting  the adoption of the Panel Report in DS538 
"Pakistan – Biaxially Oriented Polypropylene Film" . However , the United Arab Emirates  very much 
regret ted Pakistan's decision to appeal th at Panel Rep ort. Indeed, the Panel had found that Pakistan 
acted inconsistently  with several substantive and procedural obligations under the Anti-Dumping 
Agreement , both when imposing the anti -dumping measure and when extending it through a sunset 
review . In fact, the violations were of such a fundamental nature that the Panel had suggested that 
Pakistan bring its measures into conformity by withdrawing the measures . The Panel had made this 
unusual but importan t and necessary suggestion because of "the fundamental nature and 
pervasiveness of the inconsistencies" found  in Pakistan's imposition of anti -dumping duties on the 
exports of BOPP . Rather than following up on the Panel's suggestion, Pakistan had decided t o appeal 
the Panel Report . The Panel 's long list of violations and the established "fundamental nature " of the 
inconsistencies found to exist raise d doubts about the usefulness of an appeal . In this respect, the 
UAE quote d from paragraphs 9.5 -9.6 of the Report, where the Panel had said the following : "we 
have found fundamental and pervasive inconsistencies, extending to the evidence on the basis of 
which the authority initiated the investigation, the chosen POI for the original investigation, multiple 
aspec ts of the determination of injury in the original investigation, and multiple aspects of the sunset 
determination . Because of the fundamental nature and pervasiveness of the inconsistencies we have 
found, we suggest that Pakistan implement our recommendati on by withdrawing the anti -dumping 
measures it ha d imposed on BOPP film from the United Arab Emirates ." It was needless to go through 
all the claims as they had been reported in the Report itself . Unfortunately, the fact that the Appellate 
Body was presen tly not functioning mean t that this appeal w ould not be considered for a long time, 
thus delaying unnecessarily the resolution of this dispute and the implementation of the Panel 's 
suggestion , which ultimately nullifie d the UAE 's rights arising under the co vered agreements . With 
that said, t he UAE sincerely hope d that Pakistan w ould honour  its WTO obligations and implement 
the Panel 's findings, terminating the measures as soon as possible , and the UAE was ready to engage 
in any consultations or discussions which might solve th e case sooner . 
8.3.  The representative of the European Union  said that t his was yet another dispute illustrat ing the 
grave consequences of the blockage of Appellate Body a ppointments since 2017 . That blockage 
frustrate d the essential rights of Members , rights  that were agreed multilaterally under  the DSU . 
The EU  referred to its intervention under item 7 of the DSB meeting held on  28 September  2020, 
where the EU  elaborated o n those consequences and on the possibility of appeals being adjudicated 
through appeal arbitration based on Article 25 of the DSU, consistently with the principles of the 
DSU. The EU  would  not repeat th ose points at the present meeting . 
8.4.  The representative of th e Russian Federation  referred to the Russian Federation's  previous 
statements with respect to the practice of appealing panel reports into the "void" . At the present 
meeting the Russian Federation reiterate d its disappointment with the fact that WTO Members had 
continue d filing appeals notwithstanding the Appellate Body 's critical state . With the appeal notified 
by Pakistan, the effective resolution of eight disputes had been  blocked . The Russian Federation was 
greatly concerned that act ions that resul ted in the prevention of dispute settlement, in particular WT/DSB/M/449  
- 18 - 
  appeals into the "void" , aggravate d the crisis of the dispute settlement mechanism and inevitably 
undermine d confidence in the WTO . 
8.5.  The representative of Canada  said that, s ince 11 December  2019, the Appellate Body ha d 
effectively ceased to function . Article 3.10 of the DSU provide d that if a dispute ar ose, all Members 
would engage in dispute settlement  procedures in good faith in an effort to resolve the dispute . 
While the inabil ity of the Appellate Body to discharge its functions of hearing appeals ha d undermined 
the procedure s set forth in the DSU, the obligation stipulated under Article 3.10 to engage in good 
faith to resolve the dispute remain ed. No Member should try to obtain  an unfair advantage due to 
the present  impasse . In the case of specific disputes, there were solutions for dealing with the 
current impasse with the Appellate Body . In particular, the parties m ight agree to resort to 
procedures such as those listed in Ann ex I of the MPIA (in document JOB/DSB/1/Add.12) to conduct 
the appeal . Canada consider ed that it was essential for all parties to a dispute to honour their 
commitment to act in good faith under the provisions of Article 3.10 of the DSU by doing their best 
to find an acceptable resolution . Failure to do so could lead to unilateral measures which, in turn, 
would undermine confidence in the rules -based multilateral trading system . No Member would 
benefit from such a system in the long run . No Member acting in good faith should find solace in 
enjoying an unfair short -term advantage it may have  in the absence of a functioning Appellate Body.  
8.6.  The DSB took note  of the statements  
__________