RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DSB/M/452  
12 July 2021 
(21-5461) Page: 1/15 
Dispute Settlement Body  
28 May 2021   
 
  
MINUTES OF MEETING  
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD  
ON 28 MAY 20211 
Chairman : H.E.  Mr Didier  Chambovey  (Switzerland ) 
Prior to the adoption of the Agenda , the Chairman  welcomed all delegations participating in the 
virtual meeting of the DSB and recall ed a few technical instructions regarding th e virtual meeting. 
He said that i f a Member was unable to take the floor during the meeting because of a technical 
issue, the delegation could inform himself or the Secretariat and that Agenda item would remain 
open until the delegation could take the floor. In the alternative, the item would remain open 
temporarily, the meeting would proceed to the next Agenda item, and the DSB would revert to the 
open item after the technical issue had been resolved. If a technical issue remained unresolved, the 
delegation had the option to send the statement to the Secretariat with the request that it be read 
out by the Secretariat on behalf of  that delegation during the meeting so that the statement could 
be reflected in the minutes of the meeting.  Before turn ing to the adoption of the Agenda, the 
Chairman  said that he wished to make  a short statement regarding item 4 of the proposed Agenda 
of the 2 8 April DSB meeting , pertaining to the DS574 dispute . He recall ed that the matter was 
removed from the proposed Agenda to allow time for the Chair's consultations with each interested 
party regarding this Agenda item . He wished to inform  delegations t hat immediately following the 
28 April DSB meeting, he himself , as the new Chair of the DSB, ha d engaged in consultations with 
each interested party regarding th is matter . He said that th ose consultations were ongoing .  
 
The DSB took note  of the statement  and adopted  the Agenda.  
 
1  SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS 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: Status report by the European Union ................................ ................................ ....... 3 
D. United States – Anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential washers 
from Korea: 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  ................................ ................................ . 6 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products: Status 
report by Indonesia  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  6 
 
1 The proceedings of this meeting were held in a virtual format only  following the latest amendments to 
the COVID -19 related safety measures circulated by the WTO Health Task Force.  WT/DSB/M/452  
- 2 - 
  2  UNITED STATES – CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT OF 2000: 
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB  ..........................  7 
A. Statement by the European Union  ................................ ................................ .....................  7 
3  EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AND CERTAIN MEMBER STATES – MEASURES 
AFFECTING TRADE IN LARGE CIVIL AIRCRAFT: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 
RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB  ................................ ................................ .... 8 
A. Statement by the United States  ................................ ................................ ........................  8 
4  CHINA – ANTI -DUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY MEASURES ON BARLEY 
FROM AUSTRALIA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  10 
A. Request for the establishment of a panel by Australia  ................................ ........................  10 
5  EUROPEAN  UNION AND CERTAIN MEMBER STATES – CERTAIN MEASURES 
CONCERNING PALM OIL AND OIL PALM CROP -BASED BIOFUELS  ................................ ... 11 
A. Request for the establishment of a panel by Malaysia  ................................ ........................  11 
6  APPELLATE BODY APPOINTMENTS: PROPOSAL BY AFGHANISTAN; ANGOLA; 
ARGENTINA; AUSTRALIA; BANGLADESH; BENIN; PLURINATIONAL STATE OF 
BOLIVIA; BOTSWANA; BRAZIL; BURK INA 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 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; MAURI TIUS; 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; SOUT H 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 ZIMBABWE 
(WT/DSB/W/6 09/REV.19)  ................................ ................................ ............................  12 
 
1  SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS 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.2 15) 
 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of the U S Copyright Act : Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/A dd.190) 
 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting th e approval and marketing of biotech products : 
Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/A dd.153) 
 
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.37) 
 
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.29) 
 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals  and animal products : Status report by 
Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/A dd.24 – WT/DS478/22/A dd.24) 
 
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 
recommendations or rulings shall be placed on the Agenda of the DSB meeting after six  months WT/DSB/M/452  
- 3 - 
  following the date of establishment of the re asonable period of time … and shall remain on the DSB's 
Agenda until the issue is resolved." Under this Agenda item, the Chairman invited delegations to 
provide up -to-date information about their compliance efforts. He also reminded 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 t o 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 15) 
1.2.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS184/15/Add.21 5, 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 t he United States had provided a status report 
in this dispute on 17 May 2021, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  The United States ha d 
addressed the D SB'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 
recommendations of the DSB that ha d yet to be addressed, the US Administration w ould confer with 
the US Congress with respect to the appropriate statutory measures that would resolve th is matter.  
1.4.  The representative of Japan  said that Japan thank ed the United States for the latest status 
report and its statement . Japan once again call ed on the United States to fully implement the DSB 
recommendations and rulings so as to resolve th is 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 Copyright Act : Status report by the 
United  States (WT/DS160/24/Add.1 90) 
1.6.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS160/24/Add.1 90, which contain ed the stat us 
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 t he United States had  provided a status report 
in this dispute on 17 May 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  said that the European Union thank ed the United 
States for its status report and its statement . The European Union  referred to its previous statements  
and wi shed t o resolve this case 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 b y the European Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.1 53) 
1.10.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS291/37/Add.1 53, 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 . 
1.11.   The representative of the European Union  said that t he Standin g Committee meeting had 
been held online on 1 9 April 2021. The Commission had presented one authori zation and one WT/DSB/M/452  
- 4 - 
  renewal authori zation.2 The Standing Committee did not reach an opinion . The Commission would  
present the two authorisation decisions at the online meeting o f the Appeal Committee on 
9 June 2021. In addition, a Standing Committee meeting had been  held online on 1 7 May 2021. 
The Commission had presented three authorisation s and one renewal authorisation .3 Due to the 
current public health situation, the vote w ould take place by written procedure ending ten working 
days after the date of the meeting concerned.  The United States frequently refer red to Member 
States ' justifications issued during the meetings of the Standing Committee and Appea l Committee 
as being "political " and "not science -based ". The European Union underline d that the final decision 
taken on the authori zation was clearly science -based , as genetically modified organisms (G MOs) 
were authorised where the European Food Safety Au thority (EFSA) had finalised its scientific opinion 
and concluded that there were no safety concerns.  As repeatedly explained by the E uropean Union 
and confirmed by the US delegation during the EU -US consultations held on 2 2 October  2020, efforts 
to reduce delays in authorisation procedures were constantly maintained at a high level at all stages 
of the authorisation procedure.  It was also important to recognise the increased transparency in the 
EFSA's scientific assessment of GMOs, re sulting from the new Transparency Regulation4, which 
should help to reinforce trust in the safety of the authorised GMOs.  The European Union acted in line 
with its WTO obligations . Finally, the European Union recall ed that its approval system was not 
covered by the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  
1.12.   The representative of the United States  thanked the European Union for its status report and 
its statement. The European Union continued to impose undue delays on the approval of biotech 
products. The United St ates had described these problems in detail, at nearly every monthly meeting 
of the DSB since the European Union began submitting status reports more than thirteen years prior. 
To recall, the DSB had found two basic types of WTO -inconsistencies with the EU  measures affecting 
the approval and marketing of biotech products. First, the DSB had found that the European Union 
had imposed undue delays on product applications, in breach of EU obligations under Annex C of the 
SPS Agreement. Second, the DSB had found  that even where the European Union had approved a 
particular product, in many instances EU member States nonetheless banned those products without 
a scientific basis. The European Union had failed to correct either of those problems .  
1.13.   Moreover, the European Union had expanded the scope of such EU member State bans, with 
over a dozen members adopting bans on products approved at the European Union level. In addition, 
the European Commission has also proposed legislation that would expand such "opt out " bans to 
products intended for use in food and feed. The United States failed to see how the opt out for 
cultivation, or the Commission's attempt to introduce opt outs for food and feed safety 
authorizations, represented "efforts to reduce delays … at a h igh level at all stages of the 
authorization process." The United States had reiterated this at every US -EU consultation, including 
the meeting held on 22 October 2020. Recent outcomes of both the Standing Committee and Appeals 
Committee on Genetically Mod ified Food and Feed and Environmental Risk Assessment 
demonstrated the political nature of the comitology process – which repeatedly delayed safe 
products from receiving approval in the European market. For example, EU member States at the 
Standing Committ ee continue to cite " no agreed national position ", "negative public opinion ", and 
"political reasons " as justifications for reaching "no opinion" regarding product approvals. The United 
States failed to see how the EU's current approval process addressed t he undue delays contemplated 
in "EC – Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products " (DS291). The United States requested that 
the European Union move to issue final approvals for all products that had completed science -based 
risk assessments at EFSA, includi ng those products that were with the Standing Committee and 
Appeals Committee .  
1.14.   The representative of the European Union  said that t he United States' statement was a step 
backwards as compared to recent meetings. The United States had started raising issue s that it had 
abandoned in previous statements, such as the opt out directive and alleged bans imposed by EU 
 
2 Meeting of 19 April 2021: authorisation of oilseed rape Ms8xRf3xGT73 and sub -combinations for food 
and feed (except isolated seed protein fo r food) and renewal authorisation of GT73 for feed.  
3 Meeting of 17 May 2021: authorisation for food and feed of soybean DAS -81419 -2, soybean 
DAS-81419 -2 × DAS –44406 –6, maize 1507 × MIR162 × MON810 × NK603 and sub -combinations; and 
renewal authorisation of maize Bt 11 for food and feed.  
4 Regulation (EU) 2019/1381 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on the 
transparency and sustainability of the EU risk assessment in the food chain and amend ing Regulations 
(EC) No 178/2002, (EC) No 1829/2003, (EC) No 1831/2003, (EC) No 2065/2003, (EC) No 1935/2004, 
(EC) No 1331/2008, (EC) No 1107/2009, (EU) 2015/2283 and Directive 2001/18/EC (OJ L 231, 6.9.2019, 
p. 1-28). WT/DSB/M/452  
- 5 - 
  member States, as well as references to the European Union's comitology process. WTO agreements 
did not require full international harmonisation an d left some regulatory space or autonomy to 
individual WTO Members . The European Union ha d different regulatory approaches towards 
non-GMOs and GMOs but, in all cases, such regulations d id not discriminate between imported and 
domestic like products.  Regar ding the opt out directive and alleged bans, the European Union 
repeated that no EU member State ha d imposed any "ban". Under the terms of the opt out di rective, 
an EU member State c ould adopt measures restricting or prohibiting cultivation only when such 
measures were in line with EU law and were reasoned, proportional, non -discriminatory , and based 
on compelling grounds.  The free movement of seeds was embedded in Article 22 of Directive  18 of 
2001, which provided that an EU member States may not prohibit, restrict or impede the placing on 
the market of GMOs, as products, or in products, which comply with the requirements of th e 
Directive . The European Union  also note d that according to t he provisions of th at opt-out Directive , 
in particular Article 26b, point 8 , the measures adopted under the Directive must not affect the free 
circulation of authorised GMOs in side the European Union. Currently , the EU Common Catalogue of 
varieties of agri cultural species include d 150 varieties of maize MON810 , which were allowed to be 
marketed in the E uropean Union. To date, the Commission ha d never received any complaints from 
seed operators or other stakeholders concerning the restriction of marketing of MON810 seeds in 
the European Union. This confirm ed the smooth functioning of the internal market of MON810 seeds.  
1.15.   The DSB took note of the s tatements 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 7) 
1.16.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS464/17/Add.3 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 anti -dumping and countervailing measures on large residential washers from Korea . 
1.17.   The representative of the United States  said tha t the United States had provided a status 
report in this dispute on 17 May 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 
revocation of the ant i-dumping 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 ha d 
completed implementation of the DSB recommendations concerning those anti -dumping and 
countervailing duty orders.  The United States w ould consult with interested parties on options to 
address the recommendations of the DSB relating to other measures challenged in this dispute.  
1.18.   The representative of Korea  said that Korea t hanks the United States for its status report and 
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.  
1.19.   The representative of Canada  said that the United States  continue d to not conform  with the 
DSB decision  contained  in the Appellate  Body report  concerning  the case of large residential  washers . 
The United  States  continued  to use the FPD method  (fixed -priced  differential)  which  was "as such" 
incompatible  with the WTO Agreements . Thus, the United States was ignoring  the DSB 
recommendations  and was not complying  with its obligations . To the contrary , the United  States  
continued  to apply  the FPD method  "as such" in investigations  on foreign  comp anies and continued  
to collect  cash deposits  from foreign  companies  based  on this WTO-inconsistent  method ology . 
Although  the reasonable  period  of time to implement  the DSB's  recommendations  with respect  to 
the "as such" inconsistency  of the FPD had expired  three  years  ago, in its most recent  status  report  
the United States indicated  that it was still consulting  with interested  parties . Furthermore , the 
ongoing  use of the FPD by the United States  was forcing  Members  to have recourse  to a number  of 
dispute  settlement  procedures . This was, therefore,  an ineffective  and wasteful  use of resources  
allocated  to WTO dispute  settlement . Canada  remain ed seriously  concerned  by the fact that the 
United States  was still not conforming  to the DSB's recommendations  and decisions  in this case. 
This violation  seriously  undermined  security  and predictability  of the multilateral  trading  system .  
1.20.   The DSB took note of the statements and agree d to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting.  WT/DSB/M/452  
- 6 - 
  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 9) 
1.21.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS471/17/Add.2 9, 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 . 
1.22.   The representative of the United States  said that t he United States had provided a status 
report in this dispute on 17 May 2021, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  As explained in 
that report, the United States w ould consult with interested parties on options to address the 
recommendatio ns of the DSB.  
1.23.   The representative of China  said that China thanked  the United States f or its latest status 
report . However, China's  grave concern with respect to the US compliance remain ed unresolved . It 
was regrettable that 33 months after the expiry of the reasonable period of time, the United States 
continue d to fail to implement the adopted rulings and recommendations in this dispute . What was 
worse was that none of its status reports could indicate any c oncrete compliance action.  Prompt 
compliance was critical to the effectiveness and credibility of the dispute settlement system , which 
was in the best interests of the whole Membership . China  urged the United States to hono ur its 
implementation obligation s, in accordance with Article 21.1 of the DSU , by bringing itself into full 
compliance in this dispute , without further delay .  
1.24.   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. 24 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 24) 
1.25.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS477/21/Add. 24 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 24, 
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 . 
1.26.   The representative of Indonesia  said that Indonesia was  submit ting its status report pursuant 
to Article  21.6 of the DSU . Indonesia wished  to reiterate its strong commitment to implementing the 
recommendations and ruling of the DSB in these disputes . With regard to m easure  18, as reported 
in previous DSB meetings, through the enactm ent of Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation, all Articles 
in the relevant Laws that had been  found to be inconsistent with WTO rules, ha d been amended and 
were no longer in existence . With respect to measures 1 –17, substantial adjustments ha d been 
continuous ly carried out in order to be consistent with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB . 
Those adjustments include d the removal of the disputed measures in the relevant MoA and MoT 
regulations,  including,  inter alia , harvest period restriction, import rea lization requirements, 
six-months harvest requirement, and reference price . Indonesia continue d to note concerns raised 
by New Zealand and the United States in these disputes . Indonesia would continue to  engage with 
New Zealand and the United States regard ing the recommendations and rulings of the DSB.  
1.27.   The representative of New Zealand  said that New Zealand thank ed Indonesia for its status 
report and acknowledge d Indonesia 's commitment to comply fully with the WTO decision. Both 
compliance deadlines ha d, however, long since expired, and a number of measures remain ed 
non-compliant . New Zealand underst ood that Indonesia 's Parliament ha d passed the Job Creation 
Bill, but New Zealand did  not yet have the information necessary to assess what impa ct this w ould 
have on Indonesia 's compliance with the WTO decision, in particular with respect to Measure 18 . 
New Zealand invite d Indonesia to provide further details as soon as possible.  
1.28.   The representative of the United States  thanked Indonesia for its st atus report. The United 
States understood that Indonesia had recently amended the relevant laws that would address 
Measure 18. The United States looked forward to receiving further detail from Indonesia regarding 
these legislative changes and their impleme ntation by the government. With respect to Measures 1 
to 17, the United States understood that Indonesia had revised certain regulations, but the United 
States was still waiting to hear more from Indonesia on how such actions would address the DSB's WT/DSB/M/452  
- 7 - 
  recomm endation and bring its measures into full compliance. The United States remained willing to 
work with Indonesia to fully resolve this dispute .  
1.29.   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 the European Union to speak . 
2.2.  The representative of the European Union  said that, d espite the United States  having 
repeatedly indicated that the DSB 's recommendations and rulings in this dispute we re fully 
implemented by adopting the Deficit Reduction Act, disbursements under the Continued Dumping 
and Subsidy Offset Act (CDSOA) had been made every year since th en. Every disbursement that 
continued to take  place under th at legal basis was clearly an act of non -compliance with the DSB 
recommendations and rulings . For the item to be considered resolved and removed from under the 
DSB's surveillance, the U nited State s had to  fully stop transferring collected duties.  The E uropean 
Union  would continue to put this point on the Agenda as long as the U nited States  had not fully 
implemented the WTO ruling and  the disbursements  had completely  ceased . The European Union 
would  continue to insist – as a matter of principle – independently of the cost resulting from the 
application of such limited duties.  The E uropean Union renew ed its call on the United States to abide 
by its clear obligation under Article 21.6 of the DSU to sub mit status  reports 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 the U nited States from seeking a multilateral determination through a compliance 
panel procedure.  
2.3.  The representative of Canada  said that Canada thank ed the European Union for having placed 
this item on t he Agenda . Canada shared  the EU's view  that the Byrd Amendment remaine d under  
the surveillance of the DSB until 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 Act of 2000 – was enacted into law more than 15 years ago in 
February  2006. The Deficit Reduction Act did not permit the distribution of duties collected on goods 
entered after 1 October 2007, more than 13  years prior. 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 European Union's approach to this Agenda 
item. The E uropean Union presently applied an additional duty of 0.012% on certain imports of the 
United States. There was no trade rationale for inscribing this item month after month. The United 
States indicated that, as the European Union had done many times befor e, at the April DSB meeting, 
the European Union had once again called on the United States to abide by its "clear obligation" 
under Article 21.6 for the United States to submit a status report in this dispute. Notably, the 
European Union did not call on an y other Member in any other dispute to abide by this so -called 
"clear obligation," despite the fact that several Members were in the same situation as the United 
States. As the United States had explained repeatedly, there was no obligation under the DSU f or a 
Member to provide further status reports once that Member announced that it has implemented  the 
DSB recommendations. The widespread practice of Members – including the European Union as a 
responding party – confirmed this understanding of Article 21.6 . Canada, despite the views 
expressed in its statement at the present meeting, shared this view as the responding party in 
"Canada – Measures Relating to the Feed -in Tariff Program" (DS426). Canada explained to the DSB 
that, because it had submitted a noti fication of compliance, "there was no further obligation on 
Canada to provide status reports to the DSB", which Canada cited as "consistent with DSU provisions 
and the DSB practice."5 Canada maintained this systemic position that it was not required to submit 
a status report to the DSB if it had informed the DSB that it had taken the necessary steps to comply .  
 
5 Dispute Settlement Body, Minutes of  the Meeting Held on July 22, 2014, WT/DSB/M/348, para. 4.4.  WT/DSB/M/452  
- 8 - 
  2.5.  The United States noted that, at recent meetings, three other Members – China, Brazil, and 
Australia – had acted consistently with this systemic position. Each Member had informed the DSB 
that they had come into compliance with the DSB recommendations in four disputes (DS472, DS497, 
DS517, and DS529), and the complaining parties did not accept the claims of compliance. Those 
Members had not provided a status report since announcing compliance – just like the United States. 
The European Union was the complaining party in one of those disputes (DS472). If the European 
Union believed  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 item on the Agenda of the present meeting. The European Union took 
neither action. At the April DSB meeting, the European Union claimed once again that the 
circumstances between DS472 and the present dispute were "entirely different," but the United 
States was still waiting for the European Union to actually ar ticulate the supposed difference between 
the two disputes. Through its actions, the European Union had once again demonstrated that it did 
not truly believe that 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 involving other Members . 
2.6.  The representative of Canada  said that  Canada wished  to provide some clarifica tion regarding 
some observations  made by the United States at the present meeting. With regard to  the Byrd 
Amendment  (DS217) , Canada said that the DSB had authorized suspension of concessions and, 
since the matter remained unresolved, the United States had the obligation to provide status reports 
regarding the implementation of recommendations , in accordance with Articles 21.6 and 22.8  of the 
DSU. For th at reason,  Canada maintain ed its position  that the Byrd Amendment should remain under 
the surveillance of the DSB until such a time that the United States stopped applying it . In "Canada 
– Measures Relating to the Feed -in Tariff Program " (DS426), the complainants did not request the 
establishment  of a panel under Article 21.5 to examine the conformity of Canada's implementation , 
nor did the complainants request  authorization to suspend concessions under Article 22.6 . Moreover, 
the complainants expressed their satisfaction regarding the measures ta ken by Canada to comply 
with its obligations . In such circumstances, Members could conclude  that th e question of 
implementation  of DSB recommendations had been resolved . Consequently, Canada no longer ha d 
the obligation to submit status reports under Article 21.6  of the DSU.  
2.7.  The representative of the European Union  said that the European Union recall ed that the CDSOA 
had been found to be in breach of WTO rules for transferring anti -dumping and countervail ing duties 
to US industry, and the DSB had authori zed sanctions on the basis of the US failure to comply with 
the DSB's  recommendations and rulings . That situation persist ed as long as the redistribution of 
collected duties continue d, as most recently show n by the report of the US Customs and Border 
Protection for the financial year 2020 . The circumstances of this case with regard to relevant DSU 
provisions and procedures were therefore entirely different from those in the DS472  dispute.  
2.8.  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 at the request of the United States, and 
invite d the representative of the United States to speak.  
3.2.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States noted once again that the 
European Union had not provided Members with a s tatus 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 di d not agree with the responding 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 European Union argued that by submitting a compliance com munication, 
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 European Union's assertion that 
it had complied .  WT/DSB/M/452  
- 9 - 
  3.3.  The United States said that the  European Union's position was erroneous and not based on the 
text of the DSU. The European Union had argued that where "a matter is with the adjudicators, it is 
temporarily taken out of the DSB's surveillance" and the DSB is somehow deprived of its author ity 
to "maintain surveillance of implementation of rulings and recommendations". Yet, there was nothing 
in the DSU text to support that argument, nothing in 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 DSU Article 21.6 to contain this limitation. The European Union was not providing a status 
report because of its assertion that it had complied, demonstrating that the European Union’s 
principles varied de pending on its status as complaining or responding party. The United States' 
position on status reports had been consistent: under Article 21.6 of the DSU, once a responding 
Member announced to the DSB that it had complied, there is no further "progress" o n which it can 
report, and therefore no further obligation to provide a status report. But as the European Union 
allegedly disagreed with this position, it should for future meetings provide status reports in this 
"EC – Large Civil Aircraft " dispute (DS316 ). 
3.4.  The representative of the European Union  said that t he United States  had again stated that the 
European 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.  That US 
assertion was without merit.  As the E uropean Union  had repeatedly explained in past mee tings 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 wished  to 
remind delegations  that in the Airbus case the European Union had  notified a new set of compliance 
measures to the DSB.  That new set of compliance measures w as subject to an assessment by a 
compliance panel  and that panel report had been  circulated  on 2 December  2019. As noted in  its 
statement at the December  2020 meeting of the DSB, the European Union wa s of the view that 
significant aspects of the compliance panel  report c ould not be regarded as legally co rrect and were 
very problematic from a systemic perspective when it c ame to assessing compliance with the subsidy 
disciplines of the WTO agreements .  
3.5.  The European Union  said that in order to have th ose legal errors corrected, the E uropean Union 
had filed an appeal against the compliance panel 's 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 U nited 
States alternative ways to deal with its appeal . The European Union was  also committed to finding 
a balanced negotiate d solution with the US that would allow leaving both aircraft disputes behind  
them. Those considerations d id not, however, alter the fact that the compliance proceeding in this 
dispute ha d not been concluded.  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 th ose circumstances?  The European 
Union would be very concerned with a rea ding of Article 21.6 of the DSU that would require the 
defendin g party t o notify the purporte d "status of its implementation efforts " through the submission 
of status reports to the DSB, while dispute settlement proceedings on that precise issue were 
ongoi ng.  
3.6.  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 settlement rules and procedures , where, f urther to disagreement 
between the parties on compliance, a matter is with the adjudicators, the matter  is temporarily 
taken out of the DSB 's surveillance.  Under Article 21.6  of the  DSU, the issue of implementation was 
to remain on the DSB 's agenda until the issue was resolved . In the Byrd Amendment case, the 
European Union did not agree with the assertion by the U nited States that it ha d implemented the 
DSB recommendations and rulings . This mean t that the issue remain ed unresolved for the purp oses 
of Article 21.6  of the  DSU. If the US d id not agree that the issue remain ed unresolved, nothing 
prevent ed it from seeking a multilateral determination through a compliance procedure, just like the 
European Union was doing in the Airbus case.  
3.7.  The repre sentative of the United States  said that the United States was aware that the 
European Union had filed yet another notice of supposed compliance. The United States disagreed 
that the European Union had achieved compliance. The European Union asserted in it s 2020 so -called 
"compliance notice" that it had amended 2 of 8 launch aid measures that had been found in the WT/DSB/M/452  
- 10 - 
  second compliance report to continue to cause adverse effects. Therefore, the European Union 
admittedly had made no changes to 6 WTO -inconsistent  measures. Unfortunately, the amendments 
the European Union had made to French and Spanish A350 XWB launch aid were marginal and 
insufficient to withdraw those subsidies. Indeed, the European Union had claimed compliance 
repeatedly in 16 years of the dispu te. The United States found persuasive the second compliance 
panel report, which rejected the European Union's assertions and found that 8 EU launch aid 
subsidies continued to cause adverse effects. The European Union had also expressed doubt about 
US comp liance in DS353 (US – Large Civil Aircraft). But, no one could deny that Washington State 
terminated the aerospace tax break – and the European Union had not denied it. The text of the 
measure was public, and its terms were notified to the WTO and the Euro pean Union. This was the 
sole measure found to cause 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 kin d.  
3.8.  The representative of the European Union  said that  the US statement under this agenda item 
was, once again, a step backwards when compared to previous statements. Similarly to the EC – 
Biotech case, the United States had once again brought up comments on various items that it had 
stopped referring to, in recent DSB meetings. The European Union was therefore obliged to respond 
to the latest statement of the United States. The United States had mentioned that the European 
Union had amended only two out of the eight measures and had admitted to making no chan ges to 
the other six measures that the panel had found to be WTO -inconsistent. W ith regard to the 
additional Repayable Launch Investments  (RLI) not covered by the EU notification , which  were 
mentioned by the U nited States , the E uropean Union  reiterate d its position as expressed in previous 
DSB meetings , that the compliance proceeding s in this dispute ha d not been concluded due to the 
current blockage of the two -tier 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 United States.  Finally, it had to be noted that the other contested measures 
relate d to the Repayable Launch Investment for the development of the A380 aircraft mode l. It was 
well known that Airbus had decided already in 2019 to completely wind down the A380 programme . 
The last Airbus 380 rolled out of the production line in Toulouse in September  2020. The production 
line was closed and employees ha d been moved to other operations . Consequently, t he A380 RLI 
could not cause any more adverse effects to the U nited States . 
3.9.  The representative of the United States  said that the US  goal throughout this dispute ha d been 
to stop EU subsidies that harm ed US wo rkers and manufacturers , and to ensure a level playing field.  
The United States ha d re-engaged with the E uropean Union  on this important dispute and look ed 
forward to making swift and substantial progress.  
3.10.   The DSB took note of the statements.  
4  CHINA – ANTI -DUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY MEASURES ON BARLEY FROM 
AUSTRALIA  
A. Request for the establishment of a panel by Australia (WT/DS59 8/4) 
4.1.  The Chairman  recalled  that the DSB had considered this matter at its meeting on 2 8 April 2021 
and had agreed to revert to it should a requesting Member wish to do so . He then drew attention to 
the communication from Australia contained in document WT/DS598/4 and invite d the 
representative  of Australia to speak.  
4.2.  The representative of Australia  said that o n 16 December  2020, the Australian Government 
had requested WTO dispute settlement consultations with China with respect to the imposition of a 
73.6% anti-dumping duty and a 6.9 % countervailing duty on Australian barley exports to China . 
The measures were set out in Notices No. 14 and 15 of 2020, both issued on 1 8 May 2020 by the 
Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China.  Unfortunately, those consultations, held on 
28 January  2021, and subsequent excha nge of information, ha d failed to resolve this matter.  At the 
DSB meeting on 2 8 April 2021, Australia had requested the establishment of a WTO dispute 
settlement panel to examine this matter . China had not agree d to that request.  While Australia 
remain ed ready to engage in bilateral discussions with China, Australia was  disappointed that it had 
still not seen any concrete steps to respond to its legitimate concerns.  As a result, Australia again 
request ed the establishment of a WTO panel to examine this matter , with standard terms of WT/DSB/M/452  
- 11 - 
  reference.  Australia  value d China and Australia 's strong economic and community ties and remain ed 
open to further discussions with China with a view to resolving the issues Australia  had raised.  
4.3.  The representative of China  said that China regret ted that Australia had decided to further its 
panel request with regard to this dispute . China  referred to its statement made  at the  28 April 2021  
DSB meeting . China w ould vigorously defend itself in the ensuing  proceedings and was confident 
that its challenged measures w ould be found  to be consistent with relevant WTO rules.  That being 
said, China remain ed open to engage faithfully with Australia with a view to reaching a positive 
resolution to this dispute.  
4.4.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  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 , the European Union , India, Japan , New Zealand , 
Norway , the Russian Federation , Singapore , Ukraine , the United Kingdom , and the United States 
reserved their third -party rights to participate in the Panel's proceedings.  
5  EUROPEAN  UNION AND CERTAIN MEMBER STATES – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING 
PALM OIL AND OIL PALM CROP -BASED BIOFUELS  
A. Request for the establishment of a panel by Malaysia (WT/DS600/6)  
5.1.  The Chairman  recall ed that the DSB had considered this matter at its meeting on 2 8 April 2021 
and had agreed to revert to it,  should a requesting Member wish to do so . He then drew attention 
to the communication from Malaysia contained in document WT/DS600/6 and invite d the 
representative of Malaysia to speak.  
5.2.  The representative of Malaysia  said that Malaysia w ished  to reiterate  its previous statement  
made at the 28 April 2021 DSB meeting . On 15 January  2021, Malaysia ha d requested consultations 
with the E uropean Union as well as with France and Lithuania pursuant to Article  4 of the DSU, 
Article XXII of the G ATT 1994, Article 1 of the TBT Agreement , and Article 30 of the SCM Agreement . 
That request had been  circulated on 1 9 January  2021 in document WT/DS600/1 . Consultation s had 
been held on 1 7 March  2021 with the objective of reaching a mutually agreeable solution . 
Regrettably, the consultations had failed to achieve the intended objec tive. T herefore, once again, 
Malaysia was request ing that a panel be established pursuant to Article s 4.7 and 6 of the DSU , to 
examine certain measures imposed by the E uropean Union and EU mem ber States affecting palm 
oil and oil -palm cropped based biofuels from Malaysia .  
5.3.  The representative of the European Union  said that t he European Union regret ted Malaysia's 
decision to request a WTO panel on certain measures concerning palm oil and oil pal m crop -based 
biofuels from Malaysia, adopted by the European Union and certain member States.  Malaysia was 
of course entitled to bring this matter to dispute settlement in the WTO, but the European Union 
firmly believe d that the measures at stake were full y justified.  For th ose reasons, the European 
Union was confident that it w ould prevail in this dispute, and that its actions w ould be declared in 
line with the WTO rules. The E uropean Union stood ready to discuss with Malaysia reciprocal interim 
arrangements that would preserve the availability of appeal review in this and other disputes , on 
the basis of Article 2 5 of the DSU, for as long as the Appellate Body was not functioning, and a good 
examp le of such an arrangement was the Multi -Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement 
(MPIA).  The European Union warmly invited Malaysia to enter into the MPIA or to form a similar 
arrangement with the European Union.  
5.4.  The DSB took note  of the statements an d agreed  to establish a panel in accordance with the 
provisions of Article  6 of the DSU with standard terms of reference.  
5.5.  The representatives of Australia , Brazil , Canada , China , Colombia , El Salvador , Guatemala , 
India, Indonesia , Japan , Korea , Norway , the Russian Federation , Singapore , Thailand , Ukraine , 
the United Kingdom , and the United States  reserved their third -party rights to participate in the 
Panel's proceedings.  WT/DSB/M/452  
- 12 - 
  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 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 ; 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 ZIMBABWE (WT/DSB/W/609/REV.1 9) 
6.1.  The Chairman  said that t his item was on the Agenda of 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 , speaking on behalf of the co -sponsors of the joint proposal 
contained in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.19 , said that the delega tions in question  had agreed to 
submit the joint proposal  to launch the selection processes for the vacancies of the Appellate Body 
members.  Mexico,  on behalf of these 121 Members , wished to state the following . The large number 
of Members submitting this 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, the dispute settlement  system,  and the multilateral trading system . Thus, it was 
their duty to proceed, without further delay, with the launching of the selection processes for the 
Appellate Body m embers, as submitted  to the DSB.  The proposal  sought to: (i) start seven 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 resulting  from the resign ation 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 offic e had expired on 30 September  2018; a fifth 
process to replace Mr  Ujal Singh Bhatia, whose second term had expired on 10 December 2019; a 
sixth process to replace Mr  Thomas Graham whose second term had expired on 10 December 2019; 
and a seventh selection p rocess to replace Ms  Hong Zhao, whose first four -year term of office had 
expired on 30  November  2020); (ii)  to establish a Selection Committee; (iii) to set a deadline of 30 
days for the submission of candidates ; and (iv) to request that the Selection Comm ittee issue its 
recommendation within 60  days after the deadline for nominations of candidates. The proponents 
were flexible regarding  the deadlines for the selection processes, but Members should consider the 
urgency of the situation. The proponents conti nued to urge all Members to support this proposal in 
the interest of the dispute settlement and multilateral trading systems.  
6.3.  The representative of New Zealand  said that New Zealand reiterate d its support for the 
co-sponsored proposal and refer red to its previous statements . New Zealand  continue d to urge all 
Members to engage  constructively on th is matter  with a view to addressing this situation as a 
priority . The time was ripe to refocus collective effort on finding a solution that work ed for all 
Memb ers. 
6.4.  The representative of the European Union  said that t he European Union refer red to its previous 
statements on this matter . Since 1 1 December  2019, the WTO no longer guarantee d access to 
binding, two -tier, independent and impartial resolution of trade disputes.  A fully functioning WTO 
dispute settlement system was critical for a rules -based multilateral trading system.  This was why 
the most urgent area of WTO reform involve d finding an agreed basis to restore such a system and 
proceeding to the ap pointment of the members of the Appellate Body . This task had to be addressed 
as a priority.  As the European Union  had consistently noted, WTO Members ha d a shared 
responsibility to resolve this issue as soon as possible, and to fill the outstanding vacanc ies, as 
required by Article 17.2 of the DSU.  The E uropean Union agree d that meaningful reform was needed WT/DSB/M/452  
- 13 - 
  in order to achieve this objective.  The E uropean Union  therefore renew ed its call on all WTO Members 
to engage in a constructive discussion as soon as possible in order to restore a fully functioning WTO 
dispute settlement system.  The European Union  thank ed all Members that ha d co-sponsored the 
proposal to launch the appointment processes.  
6.5.  The representative of Norway  said that Norway wished to be fully associate d with the statement 
made by Mexico, and share d the concerns expressed by previous  Members . As Norway  had stated 
at previous  meetings , it was  deeply concerned with the ongoing situation where the Appellate Body 
was unable to perform its functions , against the interests of all Members . This had put the 
multilateral rules -based trading system into a crisis . Norway had endorsed the MPIA as a contingency 
measure , however, Norway's priority remain ed finding a long -lasting multilateral resolution to th e 
impasse . Norway  continue d to call on the United States to unblock the appointments of Appellate 
Body members .  
6.6.  The representative of China  said that China suppor ted the statement delivered by Mexico on 
behalf of 121 co-sponsors  and call ed upon more Members to join the proposal . China  referred to its 
previous statements on this urgent matter and reiterate d its firm commitment to an independent 
and impartial two -tier di spute settlement system.  In accordance with Article 17.2 of the DSU, 
Members bore a  collective duty to ensure a standing Appellate Body by filling vacancies as they 
arose. It was regrettable that the U S persistent blockage continu ed to obstruct the whole 
Membership from honouring this important treaty obligation.  Nothing could do more to erode 
Members ' confidence in the multilateral trading system than the demise of the Appellate Body . It 
was unimaginable that the WTO c ould be successfully reformed without a functional two -tier dispute 
settlement system . In this regard, restoring the functioning of the Appellate Body had to  remain a 
priority for the entire Membership . China  called on all Members to engage constructively in 
solution -based discussions  with a view to breaking the selection impasse at the earliest  possible  
date. 
6.7.  The representative of Indonesia  said that Indonesia wishe d to refer to its previous statements 
made  at previous  DSB meetings under this Agenda item. Indonesia continue d to urge all Members 
to accord their serious attention, willingness, and commitment to the immediate appointment of the 
Appellate Body members.  
6.8.  The representative of the Russian Federation  said that  the Russian Federation thank ed Mexico 
for the statement made on behalf of the co -sponsors and refer red to its previous statements 
regarding  the issue of appointment of Appellate Body members, its critical state , and negative 
consequences for the dispute settlement mechanism and multilateral trading system.  The Russian 
Federation reiterate d its commitment to engage in constructive dialogue wit h all WTO Members 
towards resolution of the crisis and restoration of an effectively functioning Appellate Body . Russia's 
top priority was to launch the selection processes for appointment  of AB members as soon as 
possible .  
6.9.  The representative of Thailand  said that  Thailand support ed the statement made by Mexico on 
behalf of all the co -sponsors . Thailand, like other co -sponsors, was concerned with the impairment 
of the dispute settlement system due to the A ppellate Body impasse . Thailand strongly advocated 
for prompt and practical solutions and underlined the importance of the two -tier, multilateral dispute 
system as some Members continue d to file appeal s before the A ppellate Body. Thailand urge d all 
Members to constructively engage in finding a long -lasting solution to th e AB impasse  and reminded 
Members that their goal was to revive a fully functioning dispute settlement system for  all. Thailand 
stood ready to engage with all Members in this eff ort.  
6.10.   The representative of India said that  India wished to refer to its previous statements  and 
reiterate d its serious concerns on this matter . The dispute settlement system that was binding, 
two-stage  and impartial was a core priority for India. India  therefore r equest ed all WTO Members to 
resolve this matter and work on filling the outstanding vacancies , as set out in Article 17.2 of the 
DSU.  
6.11.   The representative of the United Kingdom  said that  the United Kingdom continue d to support 
a fully functioning dispute settlement system as the best means of enforcing the rules Members had  
negotiated and ensuring the fair resolution of disagreements . The United Kingdom would  continue WT/DSB/M/452  
- 14 - 
  to engage with all Members to support efforts to find common ground and solutions on dispute 
settlement reform.  
6.12.   The representative of Korea  said that Korea refer red to its previous statements and note d 
that many Members ha d consistently voiced  their concerns over the impasse of the Appellate Body 
and als o over the urgency to revive the two -tier dispute settlement system . Korea fully support ed 
the statement made by Mexico on behalf of the co -sponsors and urge d all Members to engage 
constructively in relevant discussions to resolve this important matter as soon as possible.  
6.13.   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 WTO 
Members that ha d not yet sponsored the proposal to consider joining the 121 Members calling for 
the launch of the selection process es. The critical mass of WTO Members behind th e proposal was a 
clear testimony to the importance that  Members  all accord ed to a fully functioning Appellate Body 
as an integral part of the dispute settlement system.  The fact that the Appellate Body c ould not hear 
new appeals was of great concern.  Canada reiterate d that it was fully committed to solution -oriented 
discussions on matters related to the functioning of the Appellate B ody, and encourage d the U nited 
States  to constructively engage in those discussions.  Canada's  priority remain ed finding a 
long-lasting multilateral resolution to the impasse that cover ed all Members, including the United 
States.  In the meantime, Canada and  24 other WTO Members ha d endorsed the 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 they collectively f ound a permanent solution to the Appellate Body impasse.  Canada remain ed 
available to discuss the MPIA with any interested Member.  
6.14.   The representative of Japan  said that Japan referred to its statements made at previous DSB 
meetings and support ed the AB proposal . Japan absolutely shar ed the sense of urgency for reform 
of the di spute settlement system . As Japan had  stated consistently, it consider ed it the utmost 
priority to achieve an expeditious reform that w ould contribute to a long -standing solution to the 
structural and functional problems of the dispute settlement system . A long time ha d passed since 
the Appellate Body virtually ceased its operation  and in the mean time a number of cases ha d been 
appealed into the void . Japan consider ed it essential that every WTO Member, as the owner of the 
system, took the  situation serious ly and engage d in a constructive discussion toward the reform of 
the dispute settlement system . Japan spare d no efforts to collaborate with all WTO Members to that 
end. 
6.15.   The representative of Nigeria , speaking on behalf of the African Group , said that the Group  
wished to refer to  its previous  statements made  under  this Agenda item . The Group wished to join 
others in supporting the statements made by Mexico . The African Group continue d to regret that up 
to the present moment, th e DSB ha d failed to fill t he vacancies of the Appellate Body . Therefore , 
the Group urge d the DSB to urgently fulfil its obligation under the DSU to fill vacancies as they arose , 
through  the proposal for Appellate Body appointments , so as to maintain the two -tier dispute 
settlement system and restore the full y functioning Appellate Body . This would ensure predictability 
of the multilateral trading system .  
6.16.   The representative of Switzerland  said that  Switzerland also  wished to refer to its  statement s 
made  on this matter at previous DSB meetings . A fully functioning Appellate Body was in everybody's 
interest . Switzerland hoped that new momentum c ould be provided to solve th e present  situation in 
which Members had  found themselves  for a very long time . Switzerland was ready to work very hard 
to pursue this objective  and vigorously encourage d all Members to work in a constructive way to 
find a solution to remove the AB blockage.  
6.17.   The representative of the United States  said that t he United States was not in a position to 
support the proposed decision. The United States continue d to have systemic concerns with the 
Appellate Body. As Members kn ew, the United States ha d 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.  
6.18.   The representative of Brazil  said that Brazil once again thank ed Mexico for the presentation 
of the proposal on behalf of the co-sponsors, and wished to refer to its previous statements made WT/DSB/M/452  
- 15 - 
  under this Agenda item. As Brazil ha d stated before  the General Council, Members  needed to restore 
the multilateral integrity of the dispute settlement system, including by preserving two levels of 
adjudication with a reformed Appellate Body. To th at end, a key deliverable in MC12 should be a 
Ministerial Understanding on the role and procedu res of the Appellate Body, which could guide 
Members  toward a lasting solution to this impasse. Brazil st ood ready to engage with all Members 
as soon as possible to secure such an outcome.  
6.19.   The representative of Singapore  said that Singapore thank ed Mexico for its statement, which 
it strongly support ed. Singapore  wished to refer to its past statements  on this matter  and reiterate d 
its strong systemic interest in the maintenance of the two -tier binding WTO dispute settlement 
system . Embarking on the Appellate  Body selection process remain ed the paramount priority for all 
Members . Singapore  urged all Members, including the United States, to engage constructively to 
find a lasting multilateral solution.  
6.20.   The representative of Mexico  said that her delegation , speaking on behalf of the 
121 co-sponsors, regret ted that, for the forty -second 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 that 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 the DSB and dispute settlement in general . There was no legal justification 
for the current blocking of 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 prevent the Appellate Body from continuing to operate fully and 
Members shall 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 would  continue to be 
unable to perform its functions , against the best interest of all Members.   
6.21.   The representative of Mexico  said that her country wished to express  its deep concern 
regarding  this unprecedented situation regarding the Appellate Body that was not opera tional. Over 
the years, Mexico and 121 Members ha d continued to make statements requesting that the AB 
proposal be adopted by the DSB. All ongoing  disputes were being affected because Members  did not 
have an Appellate Body which was fully operational. This undermine d the right of all Members to 
have a two -tier dispute settlement system  and st ood in the way of the prompt settl ement  of disputes . 
For that  reason , Mexico  urged Members who ha d not done so to accept th e AB proposal . Mexico 
stood ready to continue working in a very positive way with constructive proposals to find a solution 
to this problem .  
6.22.   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 respective positions, which w ould be reflected 
in the minutes of th e meeting . He said that, a s Members we re aware, this matter require d a political 
engagement on the part of all WTO Members, and he hoped that Members w ould be able  to find a 
solution to this matter as soon as possible. He said that h is door was open to all delegations w ishing 
to contact him directly on this matter.  
6.23.   The DSB took note of the statements.  
__________