RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DSB/M/45 7 
6 December  2021 
(21-9187) Page: 1/13 
Dispute Settlement Body  
26 October 2021   
 
  
MINUTES OF MEETING  
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD  
ON 26 OCTOBER 20211 
Chairman : H.E.  Mr Didier  Chambovey  (Switzerland ) 
Prior to the adoption of the Agenda : (i) the Chairman  welcomed all delegations participating in 
the virtual meeting of the DSB and said that he wished to recall a few technical instructions regarding 
this virtual meeting. If 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 th e 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 beh alf of that delegation during the meeting so that the statement could 
be reflected in the minutes of the meeting ; (ii) the Chairman  made a short statement regarding item 
4 of the proposed Agenda of the 28  April DSB meeting pertaining to the DS574 dispute. He said 
that, a s Members recalled,  this matter had been  removed from the proposed Agenda to allow time 
for the Chair 's consultations wi th each interested party regarding th at Agenda item. At the present 
meeting, he wished to inform delegations that he continue d to consult with each interested party on 
this matter and that th ose consultations were ongoing ; and (iii) Tunisia  requested the i nclusion of 
an item under "Other Business " in order to  make  a report  regarding the consultations  with Morocco 
concerning  the DS578 dispute.  
 
The DSB took note  of the statements and adopted  the Agenda, as amended.   
 
Table of Contents  
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  ................................ ..........................  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 
 
1 The proceedings of this meeting were held in a hybrid format.  WT/DSB/M/45 7 
- 2 - 
  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 
3  EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AND CERTAIN MEMBER STATES – MEASURES 
AFFECTING TRADE IN LARGE CIVIL AIRCRAFT: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 
RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB  ................................ ................................ .... 6 
A. Statement by the United States  ................................ ................................ ........................  6 
4  CHINA – ANTI -DUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY MEASURES ON WINE 
FROM AUSTRALIA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  7 
A. Request for the establishment of a panel by Australia  ................................ ..........................  7 
5  ADOPTION OF THE 2021 DRAFT ANNUAL REPORT OF THE DISPUTE 
SETTLEMENT BODY  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  7 
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 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; 
MAURI TANIA; 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.19)  ................................ ................................ ..............................  8 
7  REPORT BY TUNISIA REGARDING THE CONSULTATIONS WITH MOROCCO 
CONCERNING  THE DISPUTE: "MOROCCO  – DEFINITIVE ANTI DUMPING 
MEASURES ON SCHOOL EXERCISE BOOKS FROM TUNISIA" (DS578)  .............................  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 20) 
 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of the U S Copyright Act : Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/A dd.195) 
 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products : 
Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/A dd.158) 
 
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.42) 
 
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.34) 
 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products : Status report by 
Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/A dd.29 – WT/DS478/22/A dd.29) 
 WT/DSB/M/45 7 
- 3 - 
  1.1.  The Chairman  noted that there we re 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 require d that: "Unless the DSB decides otherwise, the issue of implementation of the 
recommendations or rulings shall be placed on the Agenda of the DSB meeting after si x 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 wished  to invite 
delegations to provide up -to-date information about their compliance efforts . The Chairman also 
wished  to remind delegations that, as provided for in Rule  27 of the Rules of Procedure for DSB 
meetings : "Representatives should make every effort t o 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. " 
A. United States – Anti-dumping measures on cer tain hot -rolled steel products from 
Japan : Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.2 20) 
1.2.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS184/15/Add.2 20, which contained 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 14 October 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 hot -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 resolve 
this matter . 
1.4.  The representative of Japan  said that Japan thank ed the Unit ed States for its most recent  status 
report and the statement made at the present meeting . Japan once again call ed on the United States 
to fully implement the DSB 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 Copyright Act : Status report by the 
United  States (WT/DS160/24/Add.1 95) 
1.6.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS160/24/Add.19 5, which contained 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 t he United States had provided a status report 
in this dispute on 14 October 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 orde r 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  at the present meeting . The European Union  referred to its previous statements  and 
reiterated that it  wished to  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 by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.1 58) 
1.10.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS291/37/Add.15 8, which contained 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/45 7 
- 4 - 
  1.11.   The representative of the European Union  said that t he United States frequently refer red to 
products that ha d successfully passed the European Food Sa fety Authority's ( EFSA) risk assessment, 
but not yet received final approval through comitology. The European Union wished  to point out that 
there were a dministrative procedures between the publication of EFSA 's favourable opinion and the 
comitology vote t hat ha d to be respected. Th ose include d, among other s, procedures related to 
transparency, such as a one -month public consultation. The E uropean Union failed to see how th ose 
procedures c ould be characterised as "undue delay ". The European Union reiterated  that it  acted in 
line with its WTO obligations  and recall ed 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  European Union for its status report and 
its statement made at the present meeting. The United States  continued to engage with the 
European Union in good faith on these issues and had provided recommendations on several 
occasions as to how the European Un ion could address the undue delays in its approval procedures. 
It was the US understanding that there were still approximately eight biotech products for which  the 
European Food Safety Authority  (EFSA) had successfully completed a risk assessment, yet whic h 
had not received final approval through comitology. Several of those products had also been under 
EU evaluation since before 2010. While it was welcome to see the European Union issue certain 
approvals and renewals in August 2021, the persistent delays i n the EU's biotech approval system 
had yet to be addressed. 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, including 
those products that were wit h the Standing Committee and Appeals Committee .  
1.13.   The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  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. 42) 
1.14.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS464/17/Add. 42, which contained 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 . 
1.15.   The representative of the United States  said that t he United States had provided a status 
report in this dispute on 14 October 2021, in accordance with Article 21. 6 of the DSU. On 6 May 
2019, the US Department of Commerce published a notice in the US Federal Register announcing 
the revocation of the anti -dumping and countervailing duty orders on imports of large residential 
washers from Korea (84 Fed. Reg. 19,763 (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 recomme ndations of the DSB relating to other measures challenged in this dispute . 
1.16.   The representative of Korea  said that Korea thank ed the United States for its status report . 
Korea again urge d the United States to take prompt and appropriate steps to implement th e DSB 
recommendations for the "as such " measure s at issue 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 "US - Washing Machines ", that the 
"differential pricing  methodology " (DPM) was "as such " inconsistent with the WTO Agreements. 
The United States ha d also ignored the DSB 's recommendation that it had to  comply with its 
obligations. Instead, the United States continue d to apply the "as such " DPM in investigations with 
respect to foreign companies and continue d to collect cash deposits from foreign exporters on the 
basis of t hat WTO-inconsistent methodology. He said that t he reasonable period of time to implement 
the recommendations relating to the "as such " WTO-inconsistency of the DPM had expired more 
than three years prior. However, in its most recent  status report, the Uni ted States declare d that it 
continue d to consult with interested parties. Furthermore, the continued use of the DPM by the 
United States ha d obliged Members to resort to several dispute settlement proceedings concerning 
this measure. This was an inefficien t and unnecessary use of WTO dispute settlement resources.  
Canada remain ed deeply concerned about  the US continued failure to comply with the DSB 's 
recommendations and rulings in "US – Washing Machines ". This failure seriously undermine d the 
security and p redictability of the multilateral trading system .  WT/DSB/M/45 7 
- 5 - 
  1.18.   The representative of the United States  said that t he United States took note of Canada's 
statement and would convey it to capital. As it had noted at the present meeting, the United States 
had completed implementation of the DSB recommendations concerning the anti -dumping and 
countervailing duty orders on large residential washers from Korea. The United States continued to 
consult with interested parties on options to address the recommendations  of the DSB relating to 
other measures challenged in this dispute. That internal process was ongoing. The United States 
recalled that Canada commenced a dispute settlement proceeding against the United States 
concerning the use of a differential pricing an alysis and zeroing. Canada had lost that dispute before 
the panel. The panel had rejected Canada's arguments because they were unpersuasive and did not 
make sense of the text of the Anti -Dumping Agreement . 
1.19.   The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  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. 34) 
1.20.   The Chairman  drew attention to document W T/DS471/17/Add.3 4, which contained 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 . 
1.21.   The rep resentative of the United States  said that t he United States had provided a status 
report in this dispute on 14 October 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 
recommendations of the DSB .  
1.22.   The representative of China  said that China thank ed the United States for its most recent  
status report. It was disappointing that more than three years after the expiry of the reasonable 
period of time, the United States had still fail ed to implement the adopted rulings and 
recommendations in this dispute. China  urged the United States to hono ur its obligation by bringing 
its measures into conformity without further delay.  
1.23.   The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  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. 29 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 29) 
1.24.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS477/21/Add.2 9 – WT/DS478/22/Add.2 9, 
which contained 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 ani mal 
products . 
1.25.   The representative of Indonesia  said that Indonesia submit ted its status  report in accordance 
with Article  21.6 of the DSU. Indonesia wished  to reiterate its commitment to implementing the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB in these dispu tes. On measure 18, as updated in previous 
DSB meetings, Indonesia ha d removed all Articles in the relevant Laws that were found  to be  
inconsistent with the WTO rules, through the enactment of Law No.  11/2020 on Job Creation. With 
respect to measure s 1-17, Indonesia wished  to reassure that significant adjustment s in complying 
with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB had been performed through amendments to the 
relevant M inistry of Agriculture and Ministry of Trade  regulations. Those adjustments inclu ded the 
removal of disputed measures  including , inter alia : harvest period restriction ; import realization 
requirements ; six-months harvest requirement ; and reference price. Indonesia was commit ted to 
engag e with New Zealand and the United States and reaffirm ed its commitment to implementing 
the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in these disputes.  
1.26.   The representative of the United States  said that t he United States was continuing to review 
Indonesia's new  laws and regulations in light of Indonesia's recent statements and status reports. 
The United States also reiterated the question it had asked the previous month. It seemed that 
Indonesia was in the process of issuing new regulations implementing Law No. 11/2020 on Job WT/DSB/M/45 7 
- 6 - 
  Creation that would affect Indonesia's import licensing regimes. In particular, the United States 
understood that Indonesia was developing a Presidential Regulation on Commodity Balances, as well 
as new Ministry of Agriculture and Ministry o f Trade regulations. The United States said that it would 
appreciate  further clarity on which regulations presently comprised Indonesia's import licensing 
regimes and on forthcoming regulations that would affect those regimes. The United States remained 
willing to work with Indonesia to fully resolve this dispute . 
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 DSB 's recommendations 
and rulings.  Both compliance deadlines ha d, however, long since expired and a number of measures 
remain ed non-compliant. New Zealand continue d to review recent legislative adjustments in order 
to assess what impact this w ould have on Indonesia 's compliance, in  particular in respect of 
Measure  18. New Zealand understoo d that Indonesia was in the process of issuing new regulations 
under the recently enacted Law No. 11/2020 on Job Creation, which w ould impact th at assessment. 
This include d Ministry of Trade Regula tion 20/2021 – which New Zealand understood wa s currently  
in draft form – and New Zealand sought  clarity on whether th at regulation w ould amend Indonesia 's 
import licensing system. New Zealand invite d Indonesia to provide further details as soon as possibl e 
and looked forward to further bilateral engagement to th at end. 
1.28.   The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
2  UNITED STATES – CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT OF 2000 : 
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE R ECOMMENDATIONS 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 he invited the representative of the European Union to speak . 
2.2.  The representative of the European Union  said that the European Union  wished to refer to its 
previous statements under this Agenda item . 
2.3.  The representative of the United States  said that t he United States took note of the European 
Union's statement. In that regard, the United States wished to refer to its prior statements made 
under this Agenda item regarding Article 21.6 of the DSU . 
2.4.  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 this item was on the Agenda at the request of the United States, and 
he invited the representative of the United States to speak . 
3.2.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States wished to refer to its 
previous statements made under this Agenda item regarding Article 21.6 of the DSU. The United 
States simply noted at the present meeting that, as Members were aware, on 15 June 2021, the 
United States and  the European Union had reached an "Understanding on a cooperative framework 
for Large Civil Aircraft." The United States looked forward to engaging with its European partners to 
bring about a more level global playing field .  
3.3.  The representative of the European Union  said that the European Union referred to its previous 
statements under this Agenda item . 
3.4.  The DSB took note  of the statements . WT/DSB/M/45 7 
- 7 - 
  4  CHINA – ANTI -DUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTY MEASURES ON WINE FROM 
AUSTRALIA  
A. Request for the establishment of a panel by Australia (WT/DS602/2)  
4.1.  The Chairman  drew attention to the communication from Australia contained in document 
WT/DS 602/2 and he invite d the representative of Australia to speak . 
4.2.  The representative of Australia  said that o n 22 Jun e 2021, the Australian Government had 
requested WTO dispute settlement consultations with China with respect to provisional and definitive 
anti-dumping and countervailing duty measures on bottled wine in containers of two litres or less 
imported from Australia. Unfortunately, those consultatio ns, held on 9 August 2021, ha d failed to 
resolve this matter. At the DSB meeting on 27 September 2021, Australia had requested the 
establishment of a WTO dispute settlement panel to examine the definitive anti -dumping duty 
measures . China did not agree 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 was again requesting the esta blishment of 
a WTO panel to examine this matter with standard terms of 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 raised by Au stralia.   
4.3.  The representative of China said that C hina regret ted that Australia had decided to  proceed 
with its panel request with regard to this dispute. China  referred to its statement delivered at the 
27 September  DSB meeting.  China w ould vigorously defend its legitimate measures in the following 
proceedings and was confident that its challenged measure s were consistent with rel evant WTO 
rules. Having said that, China remain ed open to further engage with Australia in good faith with a 
view to resolving this dispute  in a positive manner.  
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 representative s of Brazil ; Canada ; the European Union ; India; Japan ; New Zealand ; 
Norway ; the Russian Federation ; Singapore ; Switzerland ; Chinese Taipei ; Turkey ; Ukraine ; 
the United Kingdom ; the United States  and Viet Nam  reserved their third -party rights to participate 
in the Panel 's proceedings.  
5  ADOPTION OF THE 2021 DRAFT ANNUAL REPORT OF THE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT BODY 
(WT/DSB/W/686)  
5.1.  The Chairman  said that, under this Agenda item, he was submitting for adoption the draft text 
of the 2021 Annual Report of the DSB contained in document WT/DSB/W/686. He said that he was 
doing  so pursuant to the Procedures for an Annual Overview of WTO Activities and for Reporting 
under the WTO, contained in document WT/L/105. This Report covered the work of the DSB since 
the previous Annual Report contained in document  WT/DSB/81. In other words, it covered meetings 
of the DSB from 18 December 2020 through 27 September 2021. The Report contained a brief 
summary of DSB meetings during the period under review. As in the past, following the adoption of 
the Annual Report at the present meeting, the Secretariat would update the Report under its own 
responsibility in order to include the actions taken by the DSB at the present meeting. Subsequently, 
the updated Annual Report would be submitted for consideration by the General C ouncil at its 
meeting scheduled for 22 and 23 November 2021. Consequently, the Chairman proposed that the 
DSB adopt the draft Annual Report of the DSB contained in document WT/DSB/W/686 on the 
understanding that it would be further updated by the Secretari at. 
5.2.  The DSB took note  of the statement and adopted  the draft Annual Report of the DSB contained 
in document WT/DSB/W/686 on the understanding that it would be further updated by the 
Secretariat.2 
 
2 Subsequently, the Annual Report of the DSB was circulated in document WT/DSB/ 83. WT/DSB/M/45 7 
- 8 - 
  6  APPELLATE BODY APPOINTMENTS : PROPOSAL BY AFGHANISTAN ; A NGOL A; 
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 RE PUBLIC 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 this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
Mexico, on behalf of a number of delegati ons. He then drew attention to the proposal contained in 
document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.19 and invited 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 delegations in question had agreed to 
submit the joint proposal, dated 7 December  2020, to launch the selection processes for the 
vacancies of the Appellate Body members. On behalf of those 121 Members, Mexico wished to state 
the following. The extensive number of Members submitting the joint proposal reflected a common 
concern with the current situation in the Appellate Body that was seriously affecting the overall 
dispute settlement system, against the best interest of its Memb ers. WTO Members had 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 members, as set out in the joint proposal, 
which  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 
vacanc y resulted from the resignation of Mr  Hyun Chong Kim with effect from 1  August  2017; a third 
process to replace Mr  Peter Van den Bossche, whose second term had expired on 
11 December  2017; a fourth process to replace Mr  Shree Baboo Chekitan Servansing, who se 
four-year term of office 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 process 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 
candid ates; and (iv) to request t hat 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  take into account  
the u rgency of the situation. The proponents continued to urge all Members to support th e joint  
proposal in the interest of the dispute settlement mechanism and the multilateral trading system . 
6.3.  The representative of the European Union  said that s ince 11 December 2019, the WTO had no 
longer guarantee d access to a 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. Thi s was why the most urgent area of WTO reform involve d finding an 
agreed basis to restore such a system and proceeding to the appointment of the members of the 
Appellate Body. This task had to  be addressed as a priority. As the European Union had  consistent ly 
noted, 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 E uropean Union  agree d 
that meaningful reform was needed in order to achieve th at 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 . WT/DSB/M/45 7 
- 9 - 
  6.4.  The representative of the United States  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 
Appellat e 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 believed that 
Members had to undertake fundamental reform if the system was to remain  viable and credible. The 
dispute settlement system could and should better support the WTO's negotiating and monitoring 
functions. The United States looked forward to further discussions with Members on those important 
issues . 
6.5.  The representative of Brazil  said that Brazil thank ed Mexico for the presentation of the proposal 
on behalf of the co-sponsors . Brazil wished to refer to its previous statements  made on this matter  
and st ood ready, as it ha d always been, to engage with all Members in order to find a lasting solution 
to this impasse.   
6.6.  The representative of Japan  said that Japan wished to refer to its statements made at the 
previous DSB meetings and support ed the joint proposal. Japan absolutel y share d the sense of 
urgency for the reform of the dispute settlement system. As it had stated consistently, Japan 
consider ed it the utmost priority to achieve an expeditious reform that w ould contribute to a 
long-lasting solution to the structural and functional problems of the dispute settlement system. For 
such a reform, every WTO Member, as the owner of the system, had to  take seriously  the current  
situation where the Appellate Body had virtually ceased its oper ation a long time ago and a number 
of cases ha d been appealed into the void. Furthermore, Japan consider ed it essential that every WTO 
Member restart constructive discussions on the reform of the dispute settlement system, including 
on how to address the c oncerns surrounding the Appellate Body.  Japan spare d no efforts to 
collaborate with all WTO Members to that end.  
6.7.  The representative of Korea  said that Korea  reiterate d its support for the joint proposal and 
wished to refer to its previous statements on this matter . The WTO dispute settlement system ha d 
been a central element in providing security and predictability to the multilateral trading system and 
Korea, as a firm supporter of the multilateral system, was ready t o engage constructively in relevant 
discussions to find a solution to enhance the functioning of the dispute settlement system with a 
view to accommodat ing the needs of WTO Members.  Also, Korea wished  to point out that there 
should be a work plan to reform  the dispute settlement system at MC12 . Korea stood  ready to work 
together with other Members and w ould continue to play an active  and constructive part in relevant 
discussions with a view to reaching a tangible outcome by MC12 . 
6.8.  The representative of Austr alia said that Australia remain ed strongly committed to finding a 
solution in the interests of all Members to revitalise and reform the dispute settlement system – and 
to ensure its binding, two -tier structure was again functioning effectively – as soon as possible. The 
longer the present situation remain ed, the greater the cost for the Membership. Currently , there 
were 21 notified appeals before the Appellate Body that c ould not be heard or resolved. That number 
would continue to grow. That left  more stakeholders transacting business across borders without 
the predictability of an enforceable set of global trade rules. Members  might increasingly see 
governments operate outside the WTO system when trade disputes ar ose if the system remain ed 
incapable of delivering a binding resolution. These were critical and urgent challenges for all 
Members, who ha d long valued and relied upon the level playing field that the WTO system provide d 
for settling trade disputes indepen dently and impartially. That was why Australia remain ed 
committed to working with all Members to agree a practical pathway for dispute settlement reform. 
Australia  recogni zed that changes were required to ensure the system work ed for all. To do th at, 
Membe rs needed a clear roadmap with a clear time -frame attached. Members  should not miss the 
opportunity that the MC12  provid ed to make a credible start in finding th e way forward. Australia  
therefore urge d all Members to engage fully and constructively in agre eing on such a plan , so that 
they could  all benefit from a stronger and more agile system for settling trade disputes.  
6.9.  The representative of China  said that China support ed the statement made  by Mexico , on behalf 
of 121 co -sponsors , and call ed upon other  Members to join th e proposal. China referred to its 
previous statements on this urgent matter and reiterate d its firm commitment to an independent 
and impartial two -tier dispute settlement system. The pa ralysis of the Appellate Body ha d posed 
serious challenge s to the multilateral trading system and more than a dozen of cases  had been 
appealed into the void. This severe situation not only deprive d Members  of their  right to defend their 
interests, but also jeopardiz ed the security and predictability of this rules -based organization. As the 
MC12  was fast approaching, China  called upon all Members to prioritize the restoring of the Appellate WT/DSB/M/45 7 
- 10 - 
  Body function, and to engage constructively in th e solution -based consultation s with a view to 
breaking the selection impasse at the earliest  possible  date. In China's  view, political guidance and 
a work programme for further work in the MC12  outcome paper was imperative to restore the 
confidence of Memb ers and send a positive signal to the outside. China st ood ready to work with all 
Members in th at regard.  
6.10.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that Hong Kong, China wished  to reiterate the 
importance of according priority to restoring a fully functioning WTO dispute settlement system, 
which was an integral part of the rules -based multilateral trading system. Hong Kong, China was  
committed as always to engaging in constructi ve discussion s, including  on any necessary reforms, 
to resolve the impasse . 
6.11.   The representative of Norway  said that Norway wished to refer to its previous  statements 
under this Agenda item. Norway fully support ed the joint proposal presented by Mexico, and 
co-sponsored by 121 Members. A fully functioning dispute settlement mechanism was an 
indispensable part of the multilateral trading system. Members urgently need ed to fulfil their duty 
as Members of the WTO  and start the selection processes to fill the vac ancies in the Appellate Body, 
in accordance with the DSU.  Norway had  at the same time noted the request to discuss how to 
improve the functioning of the Appellate Body and reiterate d its readiness and commitment to 
engage in such discussions.  
6.12.   The representative of the United Kingdom  said that t he United Kingdom continue d to support 
this Agenda item to launch the selection process for appointments to the Appellate Body, and 
referred to its previous statements on this issue. A fully functioning and binding dispute settlement 
system was the best means of enforcing the rules Members had  negotiated and ensuring the fair 
resolution of disagreements. As Members headed towards the Twelfth Ministerial Conference,  they 
had to work collaboratively towards dispute settlement reform which support ed the diverse needs 
of all Members.  
6.13.   The representative of Switzerland  said that Switzerland  wished to refer to its statements made 
on this matter at previous DSB meetings. A fully functional appeals stage was in everyone 's interest, 
and Switzerland hoped  that fresh impetus c ould rapidly  be given  to resolve the impasse that 
Members had  been facing for too long. Switzerland remai ned ready to work towards th at objective, 
and strongly encourage d all Members to engage constructively in seeking concrete solutions to 
unlock the current situation.  
6.14.   The representative of Turkey  said that Turkey thanked  Mexico for bringing this item to the 
Agenda. As a cosponsor of th e proposal, Turkey believed  that a f unctioning Appellate Body was at 
the core of a well-functioning dispute settlement system. Therefore, it was important that the 
two-stage character and binding nature of the dispute settlement system were safeguarded. In this 
respect, Turkey referred to its previous statements and recall ed the urgent need to start the selection 
processes for the vacancies of the Appellate Body in accordance with  Article  17.2 of the DSU. To 
that end, Turkey was committed to play its part to resolve the issue as soon as possible and  was 
ready to engage with the Members to launch the AB selection process es 
6.15.   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 constructively engage on the issues with a view to addressing this situation as a priority. 
Members had to  work to refocus their collective effort on finding a solution that work ed for all  
Members . 
6.16.   The representative of Nigeria , speaking  on behalf of the African Group , said that t he African 
Group  wished  to refer to its previous statements  on record on this very important issue . The African 
Group wished t o join other s in thanking Mexico for its 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 despite the overwhelming nu mber of 
Members submitting  that joint proposal. The fact that the Appellate Body c ould not hear new appeals 
remain ed a concern. Members had a shared respons ibility  to safeguard the two -tiered dispute 
settlement system so as to prevent undermining the multi lateral trading system , particularly through 
a number of cases where Members ha d been noted to appeal into the void. Therefore, the African 
Group urge d the DSB to urgently fulfil its obligation under the DSU , which was to fill vacancies as WT/DSB/M/45 7 
- 11 - 
  they ar ose so as to maintain the two -tiered dispute settlement system. This w ould ensure 
predictability within the multilateral trading system. Finally , the African Group encourage d all 
Members to engage constructively with each other in order to address the specific conc erns raised 
against the functioning of the Appellate Body with a view to finding a solution. The African Group 
was also in support of developing a work plan to be adopted by the MC12 . The African Group  believe d 
that procedural issues could be addressed along with substantive issues. The African Group  urged 
all Members who ha d yet to co -sponsor th e proposal to do so as soon as possible . The African Group 
stood ready to engage constructively with all Members.   
6.17.   The representative of Indonesia  said that Indonesia wishe d to refer to its previous statements 
made  at previous DSB meetings with regard to this Agenda  item. Indonesia again avail ed itself of  
this opportunity to urge all Members to give their serious attentio n, willingness, and commitment to 
the immediate appointment of the Appellate Body members . 
6.18.   The representative of the Russian Federation  said that the Russian Federation wished  to thank 
Mexico for its statement. The Russian Federation referred to its statements made at  previous DSB 
meetings and reiterate d its strong support for the proposal to launch the AB appointment process es 
immediately. Russia urge d Members to prioritize the restoring of the proper operation of the dispute 
settlement system and to renew its readiness to cooperate and engage constructively in any 
discussions on th is matter with a view to reach ing an agreement acceptable to all Members.  
6.19.   The representative of India said that India referred to its statements made on this issue at 
previous DSB meetings  and request 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.   
6.20.   The representative of Canada  said that Canada support ed Mexico 's statement 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 consider joining the 121 Members who were calling for 
the selection process to be launc hed. The critical mass of WTO Members who support ed this proposal 
was a clear testimony to the importance they all attach ed to a fully operational Appellate Body as 
an integral part of the dispute settlement system. The fact that the Appellate Body c ould not hear 
new appeals was very worrying. Canada reiterate d its interest in contributing to discussions aimed 
at finding solutions regarding the functioning of the Appellate Body. It remain ed Canada's  priority 
to find a lasting multilateral solution for all M embers, including the  United  States. Meanwhile, Canada 
and 24 other WTO Members ha d endorsed the Multi -Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement 
(MPIA) as a contingency measure. This measure s ought to safeguard their rights to binding dispute 
settlement , including the possibility of appeal in disputes among themselves. The MPIA was open to 
all WTO Members. Canada  invite d all WTO Members to consider joining the MPIA in order to 
safeguard their dispute settlement rights to the greatest extent possible unti l Members  collectively 
found a permanent solution to the impasse in the Appellate Body. Canada was available to discuss 
the MPIA with any interested Member.  
6.21.   The representative of Malaysia  said that Malaysia wished  to thank Mexico for presenting the 
proposa l on behalf of the co -sponsors. Malaysia also wished  to refer to  its previous statements on 
this matter . The overwhelming support presented by the co -sponsors of this proposal demonstrate d 
the importance of the Appellate Body , which was significant for a f ully functioning WTO dispute 
settlement system. Malaysia also wished  to reiterate its strong support for a fair, open and 
non-discriminatory rules -based multilateral trading system . In Malaysia's  view, a two-tier dispute 
settlement system was an essential  pillar of this institution. It was the responsi bility of all WTO 
Members to preserve the system and maintain the credibility and predictability of the multilateral 
trading system. Once again, Malaysia wished  to urge Members to exercise the necessary flexibility 
to enable the unblocking of the Appellate Body selection process and call ed for the immediate  
appointment of the Appellate Body members.   
6.22.   The representative of Thailand  said that Thailand support ed the statement made by Mexico 
on behalf of the  co-sponsors. Thailand refer red to its previous statements under this Agenda item 
and share d its strong co ncern over the long absence of a n effectively functioning dispute settlement 
system. Thailand remain ed fully committed to a solution -oriented discussion including on necessary 
reform s and renew ed its call on Members to continue their constructive engagemen t with a view to 
finding ways to solve this impasse.  WT/DSB/M/45 7 
- 12 - 
  6.23.   The representative of Singapore  said that  Singapore than ked Mexico for its statement, which 
Singapore  strongly support ed. Singapore  reiterate d its previous statements on this matter  and 
looked forward to commencing constructive discussions with all Members, including the United 
States, to find a lasting multilateral solution in order to restore a fully functioning dispute settlement 
system .  
6.24.   The rep resentative of Mexico , speaking  on behalf of the 121 co -sponsors, regret ted that for 
the forty -seventh  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 f ulfil 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 could not serve as  a pretext to impair and disrupt the work of this 
body 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 stat ed, "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 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 f or more than two years, Members ha d been requesting 
that th e joint proposal be approved by the DSB  so that  their right to appeal  be preserved as set out 
in the DSU. Mexico wished to refer to its previous statements made on this matter  and continue d to 
express its deep concern as Members were  faced with an unprecedented situation with a 
non-operational Appellate Body. Mexico noted that all ongoing disputes were being affected by not 
having a fully functio nal two-tier dispute settlement system, putting at risk the prompt compliance 
with and the adoption of panel/AB reports. The Ministerial Conference was one month away and th is 
should be an opportunity to give a serious signal of a commitment to work in a mult ilateral context.  
This matter required  urgent  action  and Mexico  therefore call ed on Members who ha d not yet 
co-sponsored the joint proposal  to do so. Mexico  remain ed ready to work constructively on a real 
and multilateral solution . 
6.26.   The Chairman  said that , as noted by  Mexic o, this was the forty-seventh occasion  that this 
matter  had been raised  before the DSB. This demonstrated  the interest that Member s attached to 
this matter  and the fact that  this matter  was important  for a majority of Members. He said that, as 
in the past,  the statements made by delegations on this matter  would be reflected in the minutes of 
the present meeting. As Members were aware  this was a very sensitive matter and require d political 
engagement on behalf of all Members . He hoped th at Members would  be able to find a solution  to 
this matter  as soon as possible. As Members were  also aware, the GC Chair  continue d to consult on 
this matter in the context of the preparations for the MC12  and h ad reported on his consultations at 
the stocktaking meeting  held on 25 October  2021.  He said that t hese consultations were ongoing . 
He hoped that Members  would find  a mutually satisfactory  solution to this matter as soon as possible.  
6.27.   The DSB took note  of the  statements . 
7  REPORT  BY TUNISIA  REGARDING THE CONSULTATIONS WITH MOROCCO CONCERNING 
THE DISPUTE: "MOROCCO  – DEFINITIVE ANTI DUMPING MEASURES ON SCHOOL 
EXERCISE BOOKS FROM TUNISIA " (DS578)  
7.1.  The representative of Tunisia , speaking under "Other Business ", said that his delegation wished 
to report on  the consultations that had recently  taken place with Morocco in the DS578  dispute.  
After the first meeting held on 24  September  2021, both parties had met for a second time on 
21 October  2021. Prior to that  meeting, Tunisia had forwarded to Morocco a written proposal 
outlining its  view on the conclusions of  the panel report. Morocco considered that it was not in a 
position  to make  a concrete proposal based on the conclusions of the panel  report , but wished to 
discuss those  conclusions in detail.  At that meeting , Morocco and Tunisia  had been  able to cover all 
points in the report and Morocco had undertaken  to revert with detailed proposals to remove or 
review anti -dumping rates before the end of th e week. Tunisia said that it ha d adopted this approach 
with a view to reaching a satisfactory resolution of this dispute as soon as possible. For that reason , 
it had presented a package of options for a process that would includ e bilateral discussio ns in lin e 
with Morocco 's preferences , mediation by the DSB Chair man on any outstanding issue on which no 
agreement could be reached , and, finally , an appeal  procedure  in accordance with Article 25 of the 
DSU to allow Morocco to defend its views before a functional  appeals body and thus  avoid ed WT/DSB/M/45 7 
- 13 - 
  appealing i nto the void by Morocco. He said that Morocco was limiting itself, at this point, to engaging 
in bilateral discussions, which Tunisia  hoped would  be fruitful . However, this was not sufficient since 
it would not guarantee a quick resolution of the matter.  Tunisia  called upon  Morocco to accept the 
package proposed by Tunisia so as to reach an understanding before the next DSB meeting to be 
held on 29  November  2021. It was Tunisia's intention to place the panel repo rt for adoption by the 
DSB at its November meeting , in accordance with Articles 3.3, 3.7, 3.10, 16.4 and 17.5 of the DSU .  
7.2.  The representative of Morocco  thank ed Tunisia for its report on bilateral discussions  held on 
21 October  2021. He said that the parties to this dispute had jointly agreed  to make  a report on 
those discussions  at the present meeting. Morocco reiterate d its commitment to finding a solution 
through  bilateral discussions , and hoped that these  discussions  would be fruitful  and would lea d to 
a mutually acceptable  solution.  Morocco  said that th e discussions had taken place in a very fraternal  
atmosphere  and reiterate d Morocco's  high-level commitment to fruitful  discussions  to be carried out 
within a short period of time.  
7.3.  The Chairman  said that he  hoped that the two delegations w ould make  real progress in the 
process underway  with a view to finding  a mutually satisfactory  solution. As he had  already  
mentioned at previous DSB meetings, he was  available to assist the parties to this dispu te, if both 
of them so wish ed.  
7.4.  The DSB took note  of the statements . 
__________