RESTRICTED  
WT/DSB/M/425  
 
11 April 2019 
(19-2412) Page: 1/20 
Dispute Settlement Body  
28 January 2019    
 
 
MINUTES OF MEETING  
HELD IN THE CENTRE W ILLIAM RAPPARD  
ON 28  JANUARY  2019 
Chairperson: Ms. Sunanta Kangvalkulkij (Thailan d) 
Prior to the a doption of Agenda , the item concerning the adoption of the Panel Report in the dispute 
on: "United  States – Countervailing  Measures on Certain Pipe and Tube Products from Turkey"  
(DS523)  was removed from the proposed Agenda following the decision by the United States to 
appeal the Panel Report . 
 
Table of Contents  
1   SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RE COMMENDATIONS ADOPTE D  
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  ................................ ................................ ...... 4 
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 – Measures concerning the importation of chicken meat and chicken products:  
Status report by Indonesia  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 7 
G.  United  States – Anti-dumping measures on certain oil country tubular goods from Korea: 
Status report by the United  States  ................................ ................................ .......................  8 
H.  Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products: Status  
report by Indonesia  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  8 
2   BRAZIL – CERTAIN  MEASURES CONCERNING  TAXATION AND CHARGE S ...................  10 
A.  Implementation of the recommendations of the DSB  ................................ ......................... 10 
3   UNITED  STATES – CONTINUED DUMPING AN D SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT  OF 2000: 
IMPLEMENTATION OF TH E RECOMMENDATIONS AD OPTED BY THE  DSB ........................  10 
A.  Statement by the European  Union  ................................ ................................ ................... 10 
4   EUROPEAN  COMMUNI TIES AND CERTAIN MEM BER STATES – MEASURE S  
AFFECTING TRADE IN L ARGE CIVIL AIRCRAFT:  IMPLEMENTATION OF T HE 
RECOMMENDATIONS ADOP TED BY THE DSB  ................................ ................................ .. 11 
A.  Statement by the United  States  ................................ ................................ ...................... 11 WT/DSB/M/425  
 
- 2 - 
 
  5   UNITED STATES – TARIFF MEASURES ON CERTAIN GOODS FROM CHINA  .................  12 
A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by China  ................................ ............................ 12 
6   TURKEY – ADDITIONAL  DUTIES ON CERTAIN P RODUCTS FROM  
THE UNITED  STATES  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 14 
A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by the United States  ................................ ............ 14 
7   APPELLATE BODY A PPOINTMENTS: PROPOSA L BY ARGENTINA; AUST RALIA; THE 
PLURINATIONAL STATE OF BOLIVIA; BRAZIL; CANADA; CHILE; CHINA ; COLOMBIA; 
COSTA  RICA; CUBA; D OMINICAN  REPUBLIC; E CUADOR; EGYPT; EL  SALVADOR; THE 
EUROPEAN  UNION; GUAT EMALA; HONDURAS; HON G KONG, CHINA; ICELA ND; INDIA; 
INDONESIA; ISRAEL; K AZAKHSTAN; KOREA; LI ECHTENSTEIN; MEXICO;  NEW  ZEALAND; 
NICARAGUA; NORWAY; P AKISTAN; PANAMA; PAR AGUAY; PERU; THE 
RUSSIAN  FEDERATION; SI NGAPORE; SWITZERLAND ; THE SEPARATE CUSTO MS 
TERRITORY OF TAIWAN,  PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU; THE FORMER YU GOSLAV 
REPUBLIC OF MACEDONI A; TURKEY; UKRAINE; URUGUAY; THE BOLIVAR IAN REPUBLIC 
OF VENEZUELA AND VIE T NAM  ................................ ................................ .......................  16 
 
1  SURVEILLANCE  OF IMPLEMENTATION O F RECOMMENDATIONS AD OPTED 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.191)  
B.  United  States – Section  110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by the United  States 
(WT/DS160/24/Add.166)  
C.  European  Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products: 
Status re port by the European  Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.129)  
D.  United  States – Anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential washers from 
Korea: Status report by the United  States (WT/DS464/17/Add.13)  
E.  United  States – Certain methodologie s and the ir application to anti -dumping proceedings 
involving China: Status report by the United  States (WT/DS471/17/Add.5)  
F.  Indonesia – Measures concerning the importation of chicken meat and chicken products: Status 
report by Indonesia (WT/DS484/18/Add.4)  
G.  United  States – Anti-dumping measures on certain oil country tubular goods from Korea: Status 
report by the United  States (WT/DS488/12/Add.4)  
H.  Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products: Status report 
by Indonesia (WT /DS477/21 – WT/DS478/22)  
1.1.  The Chairperson  noted that there were eight sub -items under this Agenda item concerning 
status reports submitted by delegations pursuant to Article  21.6 of the DSU. She recalled that  
Article  21.6 requires that: " [u]nless the DSB de cides otherwise, the issue of implementation of the 
recommendations or rulings shall be placed on the Agenda of the DSB meeting after six  months 
following the date of establishment of the reasonable period of time and shall remain on the DSB's 
Agenda until  the issue is resolved".  Under this Agenda item, she invite d delegations to provide up-
to-date information about their compliance efforts. She also  remind ed delegations that, as provided 
for in Rule  27 of the Rules of Procedure for DSB meetings: " [r]eprese ntatives should make every 
effort to avoid the repetition of a full debate at each meeting on any issue that has already been 
fully debated in the past and on which there appears to have been no change in Members' positions 
already on record".  She then tur ned to the first status report under this Agenda item.  WT/DSB/M/425  
 
- 3 - 
 
  A.  United  States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from 
Japan: Status report by the United  States ( WT/DS184/15/ Add.191) 
1.2.  The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS184/15/Add.191, 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 o f the United States  said that the United States had provided a st atus report 
in this dispute on 17 January  2019, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. The United States 
had addressed the DSB's recommendations and rulings with respect to the calculati on of 
anti-dumping margins in the hot -rolled steel anti -dumping duty investigation at issue. With respect 
to the recommendations and rulings of the DSB that had yet to be addressed, the US Administration 
would work with the US Congress with respect to appr opriate statutory measures that would resolve 
this matter . 
1.4.  The representative  of Japan  said that his country wished to thank  the United States for its most 
recent  status report  and the statement  made  at the present meeting . Japan , once again , called on 
the United States to fully implement the DSB 's recommendations and ruling s 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 repo rt by the 
United  States (WT /DS160/24/ Add.16 6) 
1.6.  The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS160/24/Add.166, which contain ed the 
status report by the United  States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations 
in the case concerning Section  110(5) of the US Copyright Act.  
1.7.  The representative  of the Unite d States  said that the United States  had provided a status report 
in this dispute on 17 January  2019, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU.  The 
US Administration would  continue to confer with the European Union, and to work closely with the 
US Congre ss, in order to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution of this matter . 
1.8.  The representative  of the European Union  said that his delegation wished to  thank the 
United  States for its status report and its statement made at the present meeting . The EU  wished to 
refer to its previous statements  made at previous DSB meetings under this Agenda item . The EU 
said that it wished to resolve this dispute  as soon as possible . 
1.9.  The representative  of China  said that his country  noted that the United States had submitted 
its 167th status report for this dispute. This most recent  status report , as was the case for the status 
reports submitted by the U nited States ahead of  previous DSB meetings , was not different from the 
very first status report submitted in this dispute 14 years ago. Nearly  two decades after the DSB 
had adopted the Panel Report in this dispute , and without further imple mentation, the United States 
had continuously fail ed to provide the minimum standard of protection as required by the WTO TRIPS 
Agreement. Article 21.1 of the DSU state d that: "[p]rompt compliance with recommendations or 
rulings of the DSB is essential in order to ensure effective resolution  of disputes to the benefit of all 
Members ". Without concrete compliance  actions , the effectiveness and confidence attached to 
dispute resolution w ould be severely undermined. China,  therefore , urged the United States to 
faithfully honour  its commitments under the DSU and the TRIPS Agreement by implementing the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings of this dispute without further delay.  
1.10.   The representative  of the United States  said that as the United State s had noted at prior DSB 
meetings, b y intervening under this item, China attempt ed to give the appearance of concern for  
intellectual property rights.  Yet, China had been engaging in industrial policy which had resulted in 
the transfer and theft of intelle ctual property and technology to the detriment of the United States 
and its workers and businesses. China's stated intention was to achieve global dominance in 
advanced technology. This cause d harmful trade -distortive policies and practices.  As the compani es 
and innovators of China and other Members knew well, t he intellectual property protection that the 
United States provide d within its own territory equalled or surpa ssed that of any other Member.  WT/DSB/M/425  
 
- 4 - 
 
  Indeed, as China also knew well, none of the damaging technology transfer practices of China that 
the Membership had discussed at recent DSB meetings were practices that Chinese companies or 
innovators faced in the United States . 
1.11.   The representative  of China  said t hat the United States had tried to derail the discussion to 
other irrelevant issues. However, distraction was not the solution. The issue under this Agenda item 
was whether the United States had fully implemented the DSB's recommendation and rulings in 
DS160. Obviously, the answer was negative. In its statement under this Agenda item, the 
United  States appeared to suggest the primacy of its protection of intellectual property rights as 
compared with that of others. However, given the simple fact that the Un ited States ha d deliberately 
delayed its compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute for more than 
14 years , and that the United States  had become the only WTO Member who fail ed to implement 
the DSB 's recommendations and rulings under the TRIPS Agreement, the US suggest ion was  clearly 
flawed in the absen ce of  valid legal benchmarks. Regarding the US claims regarding  China 's 
intellectual property protection issues, China wished to  refer to its statements delivered at various 
forum s, including its statement made at the DSB meeting held on  28 May 2018. His country  took its 
commitments under the TRIPS A greement seriously. China  welcome d and always st ood ready to 
engage in good faith discussions with other Members concerning any i ntellectual property issue. 
Under this Agenda item, China , once again , urged the United States to faithfully honour its 
commitments under the DSU and the TRIPS Agreement by compl ying fully with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in this dispute  without further delay. In addition, China  invite d the 
United States to consider including in its next status report the specific reasons as to why 
implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute  could not take place for 
so long in this dispute. 
1.12.   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.12 9) 
1.13.   The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS291/37/Add.129, 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 . 
1.14.   The representative  of the European Union  said that his delegation continue d to progress with 
the authori zations where the European Food Safety Authority ha d finaliz ed its scientific opinion and 
concluded that there were no safety concerns.  On 19 December 2018, the European Commission 
had adopted 2  authori zations for GMOs for food and feed use:  one for a  new GM maize1 and one for 
the renewal of a GM maize .2 On 14 January 2019, four draft authori zations – one for the renewal of 
a GM oilseed rape3, two for new GM maize4 and one for new cotton5 – were presented for a vote in 
the Appeal Committee with a "no opinion " result. Going forward, i t was for the European Commission 
to decide on these authori zations. Also on 14 January 2019 , three draft authoriz ations for new GM 
maize6 had been  presented for a vote in a member States Committee  with a "no opinion " result. 
These measures w ould then be submitted for a vote in the Appeal Committee in February.  The EU 
continue d to be committed to act in line with its WTO obligations. As the EU had stated many times 
at previous DSB meetings , the EU wished to recall  that the EU approval system was not covered by 
the DSB's recommendations and rulings  in this dispute . 
1.15.   The representative  of the United States  said that t he United States thanked  the 
European  Union (EU) for its status report and its statement at the present meeting . The 
United  States continued to be  concerned with the EU 's measures affecting the approval of biotech 
products. Delays persisted and affect ed dozens of applications that had been awaiting approval  for 
months or years, or that had already re ceived approval. Further, even  when the EU finally approve d 
                                                
1 Maize MON 87427 x MON 89034 x 1507 x MON 88017 x 59122 . 
2 Maize NK603 x MON 810 . 
3 Renewal of oilseed rapes Ms8, Rf3, Ms8xRf3 (for feed).  
4 Maize 5307 and Maize MON 87403.  
5 Cotton GHB614xLLCotton25xMON15985.  
6 Maize 4114, Maize MON 87411 and Maize Bt11xMIR162x1507xGA21 . WT/DSB/M/425  
 
- 5 - 
 
  a biotech product, EU member States continue d to impose bans on the supposedly approved product. 
As the United States had highlighted at prior DSB meetings, the EU maintain ed legislation that 
permitted EU member States to "opt out " of certain approvals, even where the European Food Safety 
Authority (EFSA) ha d concluded that the product was safe. The EU's opt out legislation permit ted EU 
member States to restrict for non -scientific reasons certain u ses of EU -authorized biotech products 
in their territories. At least 17 EU member States, as well as certain regions within EU member 
States, ha d submitted reques ts to opt out of EU approvals.  The United States  again highlight ed a 
public statement issued by the EU 's Group of Chief Scientific Advisors on 13 November  2018, in 
response to the 25 July 2018 European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling that addresse d the forms of 
mutagenesis that qualified for the exemption contained in EU D irective 2001/18/EC. The Directive 
had been  a central issue in dispute in the se WTO proceedings, and concerned  the Deliberate Release 
into the Environment of Genetically Modified Organisms, or GMOs. The EU Group of Chief Scientific 
Advisor 's statement reco gnize d that, "in view of the Court 's ruling, it becomes evident that new 
scientific knowledge and recent technical developments have made the GMO Directive no longer fit 
for purpose ". In light of these statements, the United States urged the EU to act in a  manner that 
would bring into compliance the measures at issue in this dispute. The United States further urge d 
the EU to ensure that all of its measures affecting the approval of biotech products, including 
measures adopted by individual EU member States,  were based on scientific principles, and that 
decisions were taken without undue delay.  
1.16.   The representative  of the European Union  said that t he United States had referred to w hat 
they call ed the "opt -out legislation". His delegation wished  to repeat that the "opt-out" Directive was 
not covered by the DSB's recommendations and rulings  in this dispute . He also  wished  to repeat 
that no EU member State had imposed any ban  thus far. Moreover, under the terms of Directive  
2001/18 , an EU member St ate could adopt measures restricting or prohibiting cultivation only if 
such measures were: in line with EU law; reasoned, proportional and non -discriminatory; and based 
on compelling grounds . In July  2018, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) had provided important 
clarification on the scope of application of the GMO legislation in relation to organisms obtained by 
mutagenesis techniques.  The ECJ had ruled that organisms obtained by means of new 
techniques/methods of mutagenesis, which ha d appeared or ha d been mostly developed following  
the adoption of Directive 2001/18, f ell within the scope of the Directive.  The ruling ha d not extended 
the scope of the legislation but ha d clarified how it should be read.  The European Commission was 
currently  working to ensure proper implementation  of the ruling together with EU member States . 
EU member States were responsible at the national level for the relevant control activities regarding 
placing both products produced in the EU and imported ones on the ma rket. To this effect, the EU 
Joint Research Centre (JRC) was helping national laboratories to develop relevant detection 
methods.  There ha d been many reactions to the outcome of the ECJ ruling , which had  brought  
forward a wide range of different views.  Amongst these, the Group of Chief Scientific Advisors of the 
Scientific Advice Mechanism (SAM) had issued a statement which provided  a scientific perspective 
on the regulatory status of products derived from gene  editing . This statement focuse d on the new 
mutagenesis techniques  and did not question previously authori zed GMOs. The Group of Chief 
Scientific Advisor s provide d independent scientific advice to the European Commission.  Its work fed 
into ongoing discussions with all stakeholders.   
1.17.   The DSB took note of the statements and agree d to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting.  
D.  United  States – Anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential 
washers from Korea: Status report by the United  States ( WT/DS464/17/ Add.13) 
1.18.   The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS464/17/Add.13, 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 reside ntial washers from 
Korea . 
1.19.   The representative  of the United States  said that the United States had  provided a status 
repor t in this dispute on 17 January 2019, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU . On 
15 December  2017, the US  Trade Representative had requested that the US Department of 
Commerce make a determination under section  129 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act to 
address the DSB 's recommendations relating to the Department 's countervailing duty investigation 
of washers from Korea . On 18 Decembe r 2017, the Department of Commerce had initiated a 
proceeding to make such determination. Following initiation, Commerce had issued initial and WT/DSB/M/425  
 
- 6 - 
 
  supplemental questionnaires seeking additional information . On 4 April 2018, Commerce had issued 
a preliminary determination revising certain aspects of its original determination. Following issuance 
of the preliminary determination, Commerce had provided interested parties with the opportunity to 
submit comments on the issues and analysis in t he preliminary determination and rebuttal 
comments.  Commerce had reviewed those comments and rebuttal comments and had taken  them 
into account for purposes of preparing the final determination . On 4 June 2018, Commerce had 
issued a final determination, in which Commerce had revised certain aspects of its original 
determination . Specifically, Commerce had revised the analysis underlying the CVD determination, 
as it pertain ed to certain tax credit program mes, in response to the findings adopted by the DSB.  
The United  States continue d to consult with interested parties on options to address the DSB 's 
recommendations relating to anti -dumping measures challenged in this dispute .  
1.20.   The representative  of Korea  said that his country  wished to thank the United States for its 
status report and the statement made at the present meeting.  Korea wished to refer to its 
statements made at previous DSB meetings.  Korea urged the United States to faithfully implement 
the DSB's recommendati ons and rulings in this dispute . 
1.21.   The representative  of Canada  said that his country  was concerned that the United States h ad 
not implemented the DSB 's recommendations and rulings in this dispute.  In particular, Canada was 
deeply disappointed that, despite the expiry of the reasonable peri od of time, the United States 
continued to collect cash deposits from Canadian exporters based on a methodology that had been 
found to be "as such" inconsistent with WTO obligations in this dispute . 
1.22.   The DSB took note of the statements and agree d to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting.  
E.  United  States – Certain methodologie s and their application to anti -dumping 
proceedings involving China: Status report by the United  States ( WT/DS471/17/ Add.5) 
1.23.   The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS471/17/Add.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 certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping p roceedings 
involving China . 
1.24.   The representative  of the United States  said that t he United States had provided a status 
report in this dispute on 17 January 2019 , in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU . As explained 
in that report, the United States continue d to consult with interested parties on options to address 
the DSB 's recommendations .  
1.25.   The representative  of China  said that the Appellate Body r eport in this dispute  had been  
circulated to Members  on 11 May 2017. On 22 May 2017, the DSB had adopted the Appellate Body  
report  and the Panel r eport, as modified by the App ellate Body r eport. The Arbitration pursuant to 
Article 21.3(c) of the DSU had determined the reasonable period of time (RPT) to be 15 months . 
The RPT had expired on 22 August 2018 . On 9 September 2018, China had requested authorization 
from the DSB to suspend concessions or other obligations and the matter ha d been referred to 
arbitration in line with the Article 22.6 of  the DSU . Thus far, the U nited States had submitted six 
status reports . None of the  status reports  indicate d any substantive implementation progress by the 
United States to address the DSB 's recommendations in this dispute other than "consulting with the 
interested parties ". Due to its consistent incompliance, 20 months after the DSB had adopted the 
Appellate Body report and the panel report in this dispute, and 5 months after the expiry of the R PT, 
this dispute was still unresolved. Unfortunately, China was not the only victim. Based on the Agenda 
of the present meeting, five of the eight disputes within  Agenda item 1 related to the failure by the 
United States to implement the DSB's rulings and recommendations . Not only did such behaviour 
violate the clear text of the DSU , it also cast doubts on  the effectiveness and credibility of the WTO 
dispute settlement system . These doubts ran against the interests of the entire  Membership. With 
regard  to this dispute, China was very disappointed and deeply concerned with the US progress in 
implementing the DSB's adopted recommendations and rulings. The WTO -inconsistent measures 
taken by the U nited States had seriously infringed China 's legitimate economic and trade interests, 
distorted the relevant international market as well as seriously damaged the rule s-based multilateral 
trading system . This should alert all Members and the international community . China, once again, WT/DSB/M/425  
 
- 7 - 
 
  urged  the U nited States to take concrete actions, fully respect WTO rules, and faithfully implement 
the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute .  
1.26.   The representative  of the United States  said that the United States took note of C hina's 
statement made at the present meeting and would convey it to capital. The United States was willing 
to discuss this matter with China on a bilateral basis. To be clear, however, it was incorrect to 
suggest that the United States had taken no action.  As the United States had reported to the DSB 
at previous DSB meetings, t he United States continue d to consult with interested parties on options 
to address the DSB's recommendations in this dispute . That internal process was ongoing.  
1.27.   The representative  of China  said that his delegation noted that the United States had 
repeatedly expressed its willingness to discuss its implementation of the DSB's recommendations 
and rulings in this dispute bilaterally with China . However, the prompt resolution of this disp ute 
required  concrete deeds rather than mere good words. As Article 21.1 of the DSU stated:  "[p]rompt 
compliance with recommendations or rulings of the DSB is essential in order to ensure effective 
resolution of disputes to the benefit of all Members ". China,  therefore , urged the United States to 
faithfully bring its WTO -inconsistent measures into conformity  with its obligations  without further 
delay . 
1.28.   The DSB took note of the statements and agree d to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting.  
F.  Indonesia – Measures concerning the importation of chicken meat and chicken 
products: Status report by Indonesia ( WT/DS484/18 /Add.4 ) 
1.29.   The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS484/18 /Add.4 , which contain ed the 
status report by Indonesia on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in the 
case on measures concerning the importation of chicken meat and chicken products . 
1.30.   The representative  of Indonesia  said that his country had submitted this  report in accordance 
with Article 21.6 of DSU. On 22  November 2017, the DSB had adopted its recommendations and 
rulings in this dispute . At the 22 January 2018  DSB meeting, Indonesia had informed the DSB  of its 
intention to implement the DSB's recommendat ions and rulings  in this dispute . Indonesia and Brazil 
had also informed the DSB, on 15 March 2018, of their agreement on a reasonable period of time 
(RPT) for Indonesia to implement the DSB's  recommendations and rulings  in this dispute . The RPT 
had expired on 22 July 2018.  His delegation wished to inform Members  that Indonesia ha d 
undertaken the necessary steps to adjust the relevant measures by amendi ng its regulations, 
namely: (i) Ministry of Agriculture Regulation No.  23/2018, which had entered i nto force on 
24 May 2018; and (ii) Ministry of Trade Regulation No.  65/2018, which had entered into force on 
31 May 2018.  These regulations had also been notified to the Committee of Import Licensing on 
15 August  2018 with document number G/LIC/N/2/IDN/39 a nd G/LIC/N/2/IDN/41.  With those 
revisions, as Indonesia had sta ted at previous DSB meetings, products concerned by  this dispute 
could  be imported. Importers were allowed to modify the information contained in the ir import 
licenses without any sanctions. Regarding the distribution plan, Indonesia's  domestic producers also 
had a plan for their products to be distributed. With respect to the submitted questionnaire, the 
process of internal examination ha d entered its f inal stage. Indonesia stood  ready to continue to 
consult  and would remain in constant communication with Brazil with respect to any matter relating 
thereto . 
1.31.   The representative  of Brazil  said that her country  wished to thank  Indonesia for its status 
report,  which Brazil was  currently reviewing.  Brazil ha d concerns about Indonesia 's implementation 
of the DSB 's recommendations and rulings in th is dispute.  These concerns relate d, inter alia , to the 
"positive list requirement ", which was still in force. Indonesia  had chose n to maintain the list and 
include some of the HS codes of chicken meat and chicken products that had been  the subject of 
Brazil 's complaint. One HS code, however, still remain ed to be included in Indonesia 's positive list.  
In addition, Brazil note d that Indonesia had eliminated the requirement of distribution reports with 
information regarding use or place of sale of imported chicken meat and chicken products. The 
requirement of distribution plans nonetheless still exist ed by force of Ar ticle 22(1)(l) of Ministry of 
Agriculture  Regulation 34/2016.  Brazil was aware  of the possibility of making amendments to the 
terms of import licenses. However, it was Brazil's understanding that  the amendments still subject ed 
importers to several sanctions in the event that  some requirements were not strictly observed.  Brazil WT/DSB/M/425  
 
- 8 - 
 
  wished  to highlight, as a final point, the unsatisfactory status of the analysis of Brazil 's veterinary 
health certificate for the importation of chicken  meat and chicken products. Brazil believed that  
undue delay continue d with Indonesia 's approval of the certificate.  The reasonable period of time  
(RPT)  for Indonesia to comply with the DSB 's recommendations and rulings in this dispute ha d 
expired on 22 Ju ly 2018. Full implementation, as Brazil had previously explained, remain ed to be 
seen. Brazil  thus urge d Indonesia to fully comply with the DSB 's recommendations and rulings in 
this dispute.  Brazil stood  ready to work with Indonesia with respect to any asp ect of this dispute . 
1.32.   The DSB took note of the statements and agree d to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting.  
G.  United  States – Anti-dumping measures on certain oil country tubular goods from 
Korea: Status report by the United  States ( WT/DS488/12 /Add.4 ) 
1.33.   The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS488/12/Add.4, which contain ed the 
status report by the United States on progress in  the implementation of the DSB's recommendations 
in the case concerning anti -dumping measures on certain oil country tubular goods from Korea . 
1.34.   The representative  of the United States  said that o n 11 January 2019, the United States and 
Korea had informed the DSB that the parties had mutually agreed to modify the previously notified 
reasonable period of time for implementation of the DSB 's recommendations  and rulings in this 
dispute pursuant to Article 21.3(b) of the DSU. The  reasonable period of time  now expire d on 
12 July 2019.  The United States had provided a status report in this dispute on 17 January 2019, in 
accordance with A rticle 21.6 of the DSU.  On 23 November  2018, the US Department of Commerce 
had provided notice in the US Federal Register that it ha d commenced a proceeding to gather 
information, analyse record evidence, and consider the determinations which would be necessary to 
bring the anti -dumping investigation at issue in this dispute into confor mity with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings. The notice was available at 83 F.R. 59359.  The United States w ould 
continue to consult with interested parties on options to address the DSB's recommendations.  
1.35.   The representative  of Korea  said that his country wished to  thank the United States for its 
status report and the statement  made  at the present meeting , which reflect ed the modification of 
the reasonable period of time (RPT). Since the modification of the RPT had been  made based on the 
mutual agre ement between Korea and the United States, Korea strongly request ed the United States 
to faithfully implement the DSB's recommendation s and rulings and eventually to bring the measure 
into compliance within the RPT, which w ould expire on 12 July 2019. Kore a would continue to closely 
monitor actions taken by the United States  towards the  implementation of the DSB's 
recommendation s and rulings  in this dispute.   
1.36.   The DSB took note of the statements and agree d to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
H.  Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products: 
Status report by Indonesia (WT/DS477/21 – WT/DS478/22)  
1.37.   The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS477/21 – WT/DS478/22, 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 . 
1.38.   The representative  of Indonesia  said that his delegation had  submitt ed this report pursuant 
to Article 21.6 of the DSU. On 22  November 2017, the DSB had adopted the recommendations and 
rulings in respect of the Panel and Appellate Body reports in this dispute . At the 28 February 2018  
DSB meeting , Indonesia had informed the DSB that it intended to implement the DSB 's 
recommendations and rulings in th is dispute, but that it would need a reasonable period of time 
(RPT) to do so. Pursuant to Article 21.3 (b) of the DSU, Indonesia, the United States and 
New Zealand ha d mutually agreed on the RPT to implement the DSB 's recommendations and rulings . 
That RPT had expired on 22 July 2018. Nevertheless, with regard to the DSB’s recommendations 
and rulings concerning Measure  18, Indonesia, the United States and New Zealand also ha d mutually 
agreed that Indonesia w ould have more time to make statutory changes to comply with the DSB 's 
recommendations and rulings in th is dispute. Accordingly, the United States and New Zealand w ould 
not initiate further proceedings concerning Measure 18 until at least 22 June 2019. Indonesia w ished WT/DSB/M/425  
 
- 9 - 
 
  to inform the DSB that it ha d taken appropriate steps to implement the DSB 's recommendations and 
rulings in th is dispute within the RPT agreed by the p arties. To this end, Indonesia ha d issued 
amended regulations that address ed measures found to be inconsistent with its WTO obligations in 
the following manner.  For measures 1 -9, i.e., the measures concerning the importation of 
horticultural products, Indonesia had issued two regulations, namely: Minister of Agriculture 
Regulation No. 24/2018 ; and Minister of Trade Regulation No. 64/2018. These regulations had co me 
into force on 6 June 2018 and 31 May 2018 respectively.  For measures 10 – 17, i.e., the measures 
concerning the importation of animals and animal products, Indonesia had also amended previous 
relevant regulations , namely:  Minister of Agriculture Regulat ion No. 23/2018 ; and Minister of Trade 
Regulation No. 65/2018 , which had come into force on 24 May 2018 and 31 May 2018 respectively . 
In addition , for transparency purposes, Indonesia ha d notified these regulations to the Committee 
of Import Licensing on 1 5 August 2018 . These notifications were  contained in  the following 
document s: G/LIC/N/2/IDN/39, G/LIC/N/2/IDN/40, G/LIC/N/2/IDN/41, and G/LIC/N/2/IDN/42. 
Indonesia ha d provided the United States and New Zealand with copies of all relevant regulations. 
Indonesia st ood ready to maintain constant communication with the United States and New Zealand 
with respect to any matter relating to the settlement of th is dispute.  
1.39.   The representative  of New Zealand  said that his country wished to thank Indonesia for its 
status report and its statement made at the present meeting . New Zealand acknowledge d the steps 
that Indonesia had taken to date to bring its regulations into compliance with the  DSB's 
recommendations  and rulings in this dispute. New Zealand  welcome d Indonesia 's commitment to 
comply fully with the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute . New Zealand  did not 
consider, however, that full compliance ha d been reached in respect of a number of mea sures 
addressed in th is dispute . Of particular concern still were the continued enforcement by Indonesia 
of harvest period import bans and realization  requirements, and the restrictions placed on import 
volumes based on storage capacity. New Zealand , there fore, wished  to thank Indonesia for its 
continued engagement, including its status report. Beyond what was set out in this status report, 
New Zealand  underst ood that further legislative change was under way in Indonesia . New Zealand  
looked forward to hearing progress in the coming months. New Zealand w ould continue to work with 
Indonesia to achieve long -term and commercially meaningful compliance with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in this dispute . 
1.40.   The representative  of the United St ates said that in November 2017, the DSB had adopted 
reports finding that Indonesia 's measures on horticultural products, animal, and animal products 
breached Article  XI:1 of the GATT 1994. Accordingly, the DSB had recommended that Indonesia 
bring its meas ures into conformity with its obligations under the GATT 1994.  The reasonable 
period  of time  for Indonesia to implement the DSB 's recommendations and rulings had expired on 
22 July 2018.  The United States consider ed that Indonesia ha d failed to bring its m easures restricting 
the importation of horticultural products, animals, and animal products into compliance with WTO 
rules. In August 2018, the United States had requested authorization from the DSB to suspend 
concessions or other obligations at an annual level based on a formula commensurate with the trade 
effects caused to the interests of the United States.  Indonesia had objected to the US request, 
referring the matter to arbitration. The United States ha d paused the arbitration to give the parties 
more time to work towards a resolution to this dispute. Regrettably, contrary to the assertions in its 
status report, Indonesia had failed to bring its measures into compliance. For example, Indonesia 
continued to impose quantitative restrictions on imported pr oducts, and still maintained application 
window, validity period, and fixed term requirements for import licenses that effectively banned the 
importation of US horticultural products for weeks at a time.  The DSB had already found these 
Indonesian restricti ons to be inconsistent with Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994. The United States 
remain ed willing to work with Indonesia to fully and meaningfully resolve this dispute, permitting 
US farmers and ranchers to satisfy the demand from Indonesian importers fo r their high -quality 
products. The United States look ed forward to hearing promptly from Indonesia what additional 
actions it w ould take to bring its measures into full compliance.  
1.41.   The DSB took note of the statements and agree d to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting.  WT/DSB/M/425  
 
- 10 - 
 
  2  BRAZIL – CERTAIN MEA SURES CONCERNING TAX ATION AND CHARGES  
A.  Implementation of the recommendations of the DSB  
2.1.  The Chairperson  recall ed that in accordance with DSU provisions, the DSB was required to keep 
under surveillance the i mplementation of the DSB 's recommendations and rulings in order to ensure 
effective resolution of disputes to the benefit of all Members. In this respect, Article  21.3 of the DSU 
provide d that the Member concerned had to  inform the DSB, within 30 days afte r the date of adoption 
of the panel or Appellate Body report, of its intentions in respect of implementation of the  DSB's 
recommendations and rulings.  She further recalled  that at its 11 January 2019 meeting, the DSB 
had adopted the Appellate Body reports and the Panel reports, as modified by the Appellate Body 
reports, pertaining to the disputes on: "Brazil – Certain Measures Concerning Taxation and Charges"  
(DS472 ; DS497). She then  invite d the representative of Brazil to  inform the DSB of its intentions in 
respect of implementation of the DSB's recommendations.  
2.2.  The representative  of Brazil  said that o n 11 January 2019, the DSB had adopted the Panel 
reports and Appellate Body reports in the disputes on: "Brazil – Certain Measures Concerning 
Taxation and Charges " (DS472 ; DS497).  Pursuant to the first sentence of Article 21.3 of the DSU, 
Brazil wishe d to state it s intention to fully implement  the DSB's recommen dations and rulings in 
these disputes in compliance with Brazil 's WTO obligations.  Brazil, however, deem ed it impracticable 
to comply immediately with the DSB's recommendations and rulings in these disputes and w ould 
need a reasonable period of time  for implementation.  Brazil st ood ready to discuss th ese matter s 
with the E U and Japan.   
2.3.  The representative  of the European Union  said that his delegation  stood ready to engage in 
dialogue with Brazil in a constructive manner in the weeks  following the present meeting , with a 
view to achieving prompt and full compliance and the positive resolution of this dispute. If immediate 
compliance was impracticable, the EU would be  happy to discuss what the removal of the prohibited 
subsidies "witho ut delay " entail ed, as well as the reasonable period of time to bring all other 
WTO-inconsistent measures into compliance.  
2.4.  The representative  of Japan  said that his country wished  to expre ss its appreciation  of Brazil 's 
intention to implement the DSB 's recommendations and rulings as Brazil had expressed in its 
statement made at the present meeting . In order to ensure clear and prompt settlement of this 
dispute, Japan expect ed Brazil to take necessary actions for prompt implementation of the DSB's 
recommenda tions and rulings. Japan was willing to discuss this matter, including an appropriate 
reasonable period of time , in good faith with Brazil and the EU.  
2.5.  The DSB took note of the statements, and of the information provided by Brazil regarding its 
intentions in respect of implementation of the DSB's recommendations.  
3  UNITED  STATES – CONT INUED DUMPING AND SU BSIDY OFFSET ACT OF  2000: 
IMPLEMENTATION OF TH E RECOMMENDATIONS AD OPTE D BY THE  DSB 
A.  Statement by the European  Union  
3.1.  The Chairperson  said that this  item was on the Agenda of the present  meeting at the reque st 
of the European  Union . She then  invite d the representative of the European  Union to speak . 
3.2.  The representative of th e European Union  said that his delegation had request ed, once again , 
that the United States stop transferring anti -dumping and countervailing duties to the US industry . 
Every disbursement that still t ook place was clearly an act of non -compliance with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings  in this dispute . The EU renew ed its call on the United States to abide 
by its clear obligation under Article 21.6 of the DSU to submit implementation reports in this dispute.  
The EU w ould continue to p lace this item on the Agenda as long as the U nited States had not 
implemented the DSB's recommendations and rulings  in this dispute . 
3.3.  The representative of  the United States  said that a s the United States ha d noted at previous 
DSB mee tings, the Deficit Reduction Act – which include d a provision repealing the Continued 
Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000  – had been  enacted into law in February 2006. Accordingly, 
the United  States ha d taken all actions necessary to implement the DSB 's recommendations and WT/DSB/M/425  
 
- 11 - 
 
  rulings in these disputes.  The United States  recall ed, furthermore, that the EU ha d acknowledged 
that the Deficit Reduction Act d id not permit the distribution of duties collected on g oods entered 
after 1 October 2007, more than 10  years ago . With respect to the EU 's request for status reports 
in this matter , as the United States  had already explained at previous DSB meetings, there was no 
obligation under the DSU to provide further sta tus reports once a Member announce d that it ha d 
implemented the DSB 's recommendations and rulings, regardless of whether the complaining party 
disagree d about compliance.  The practice of Members confirm ed this widespread und erstanding of 
Article 21.6  of the DSU . Responding party Members d id not continue submitting status reports where 
the responding Member ha d claimed compliance and the complaining Member disagree d, as 
Members would  see under the next Agenda item concerning the "EC – Large Civil Aircraft " dispute  
(DS316) . As the EU was aware, the United States ha d announced in this  dispute that it ha d 
implemented the DSB 's recommendations and rulings.  If the EU disagree d, there would simply 
appear to be a disagreement between the parties to the dispute abo ut the situation of compliance .  
3.4.  The representative of  Canada  said that his country wished to thank the European Union for 
placing this item on the Agenda of the present meeting.  Canada shared the EU's view that this 
dispute had to remain under surveillanc e of the DSB until the United States ceased to apply the 
measures at issue in this dispute .  
3.5.  The representative of  Brazil  said that as an original party to this dispute, his country  wished to 
thank the EU , once again , for placing this item on the DSB Agenda . The main aspect of this item on 
the Agenda – beyond the discussion about the obligation or not for the concerned Member to 
continue to submit status reports – was that after more than 15  years of the DSB's recommen dations 
and rulings in this dispute, and more than 12  years after the date of the Deficit Reduction Act that 
had repealed the Byrd Amendment,  millions of dollars in anti -dumping and countervailing duties 
charged on Brazilian and other Members' exports were  still being illegally disbursed to US domestic 
petitioners . Brazil called on the United States to fully comply with the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings in this dispute . 
3.6.  The DSB took note of the statements.  
4  EUROPEAN  COMMUNITIES  AND CERTAIN MEMBER STATES – MEASURES AFFECTING  
TRADE IN LARGE CIVIL  AIRCRAFT: IMPLEMENT ATION OF THE RECOMME NDATIONS 
ADOPTED BY THE DSB  
A.  Statement by the United  States  
4.1.  The Chairperson  said that this  item was on the Agenda of the present  meeting at the req uest 
of the United  States . She then  invite d the representative of the United States to speak . 
4.2.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States noted that, once again, the 
EU had not provided Members with a status report concerning the "EC – Large Civil Aircraft" dispute 
(DS316) . The United States ha d raised this same issue at recent past DSB meetings, where the EU 
had similarly chose n not to provide a status report. As the United States had noted at several recent 
DSB meetings , the EU had argued that Art icle 21.6 of the DSU required that : "the issue of 
implementation … shall remain on the DSB's agenda until the issue is resolved".  And t he EU had 
argued that where the EU itself did not agree with another Member's "assertion that it has 
implemented the DSB recommendations and rulings", "the issue remains unresolved for the 
purposes of Article  21.6 DSU" . Yet for this dispute, the EU had conceded at the 18 December 2018 
DSB meeting that " compliance proceedings in this dispute are still ongoing and whether or n ot the 
matter is resolved is the very subject matter of th [e] ongoing litigation ". This stated EU position 
simply contradicted the EU's actions in this dispute.  Given the EU's failure to provide a status report 
in this dispute again ahead of the present me eting, the United States failed to see how the EU's 
behaviour was consistent with the alleged systemic view it had been espousing for more than 10 
years. Under the EU's own view, the EU should have been providing status reports. Yet it had failed 
to do so.  The only difference that the United States could see was that, now that the EU was a 
responding  party, the EU was choosing to contradict the reading of Article 21.6 of the DSU it had 
long erroneously promoted. The EU's purported rationale was that it did not need to provide a status 
report because it was pursuing a second compliance panel under Article 21.5 of the DSU. But as the 
United States had explained at previous DSB meetings, there was nothing in Article 21.6 of the DSU 
to support this position. By way of contrast, under Article 21.6 of the DSU, a responding party WT/DSB/M/425  
 
- 12 - 
 
  Member provided the DSB with a status report "of its progress in the implementation" of the DSB's 
recommendations. But once the Member had announced compliance there was no further "progres s" 
on which it could report. And the conduct of every Member when acting as a responding party, 
including the EU, showed that WTO Members understood that a responding party had no obligation 
under Article 21.6 of the DSU to continue supplying status report s once that Member announced 
that it had implemented the DSB's recommendations. As the EU allegedly disagreed with 
this position, it should for future DSB meetings provide status reports in this dispute. At the 
18 December 2018 DSB meeting, the EU had also  argued that since " the DSB exercised its function 
through the establishment of a compliance panel … [t]he matter is currently with the adjudicators 
and therefore temporarily taken out of the DSB 's surveillance ". Once again, however, the EU was 
inventing le gal standards without grounds in the agreed text of the DSU. There was no reference in 
Article 21.6 of the DSU to pausing or terminating surveillance in light of a compliance panel 
proceeding. However, Article 21.6 of the DSU  did refer to a Member submitti ng a report on its 
"progress in the implementation" of the DSB's recommendations. As explained, it followed that if a 
Member considered it had completed its "progress in the implementation" by implementing , then 
there would be no further obligation to prov ide a report.  
4.3.  The representative of  the European Union  said that the United States ha d avoided using the 
words "Byrd Amendment" in its statement and had kept referring to "the view that the EU has long 
promoted" or to "the view that the EU has espoused for more than a decade". This had actually been 
a reference to the "US — Offset Act (Byrd Amendment)" dispute s (DS217 ; DS234 ) and the Agenda 
item that Membe rs had  discussed prior to  this Agenda item. His delegation wished to state 
that the United States  kept on trying to cover and justify its failure to provide status reports in the 
"US — Offset Act (Byrd Amendment)" dispute s (DS217 ; DS234 ) by referring to th e "EC – Large Civil 
Aircraft" dispute (DS316) . As his delegation  had stated at previous DSB meetings, there was a 
difference between the "EC – Large Civil Aircraft" dispute (DS316) and the "US — Offset Act (Byrd 
Amendment)" dispute s (DS217 ; DS234 ). In the "US — Offset Act (Byrd Amendment)" dispute s 
(DS217 ; DS234 ), the dispute s had been adjudicated and there were no further compliance 
proceedings pending . Under Article  21.6 of the DSU, the issue of implementation shall remain on 
the DSB's Agenda until th e issue was resolved . In the "US — Offset Act (Byrd Amendment)" (DS217 ; 
DS234 ) dispute s, the EU d id not agree with the US assertion that the United States had implemented 
the DSB's recommendations and rulings . As a result, the issue remain ed unresolved for  purposes of 
Article 21.6 DSU.  In the "EC – Large Civil Aircraft" dispute (DS316) , once the Appellate Body report 
on compliance had been issued, the EU had notified to the WTO a new set of measures in a 
compliance communication , submitt ed at the 28  May 2018 DSB meeting . With respect to the 
measures included in that communication, the United  States had expressed the view that the EU 
had not yet fully complied with the DSB 's recommendations . In response  to the US view , on 
29 May 2018, the EU had requested con sultations with the United States pursuant to  Articles  4 
and 21.5 of the DSU . After the failure of the consultations, the E U had asked for the establishment 
of a compliance panel. The compliance panel had been  established by the DSB on 27 August 2018. 
Hence , compliance proceedings in this dispute were still ongoing and whether or not the matter was 
resolved was the very subject matter of this ongoing litigation.  With regard to the US comment on 
Article 21.6 of the DSU, the EU would be very concerned with a reading of this provision which would 
require the implementing Member to notify the status of implementation while litigation on this issue 
was ongoing . This view wa s further supported by Article 2 of the DSU on the administration of the 
dispute settlement rules and procedures . In the "EC – Large Civil Aircraft" dispute (DS316) , and 
further to  disagreement between the parties regarding  compliance, the DSB had exercised its 
function through the establishment of a compliance panel . The matter was currently with the 
adjudicators and had therefore been temporarily taken out of the DSB 's surveillance . 
4.4.  The DSB took note of the statements.  
5  UNITED STATES – TARIF F MEASURES ON CERTAI N GOODS FROM CHINA  
A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by China (WT/DS543/7)  
5.1.  The Chairperson  recall ed that the DSB had considered this matter at its  meeting on 
18 December  2018 and had agreed to revert to it. She then drew  attention to the communication 
from China conta ined in document WT/DS543/7 and invite d the representative of China to speak . 
5.2.  The representative  of China  said that despite his country's strong opposition, the United States 
had begun to collect 25% additional duties on approximately US$34 billion of Chin ese imports on WT/DSB/M/425  
 
- 13 - 
 
  6 July 2018 and had imposed 10% additional duties on approximately US$200 billion of Chinese 
imports from 24  September  2018, based on a unilateral US determination under "Section  301" of its 
Trade Act of 1974 . This was a blatant breach of US obligations under the WTO Agreements and was 
posing a severe systemic challenge to the multilateral trading system. China had requested 
consultations with the United States on 4 April 2018 and had filed supplements to its request fo r 
consultations on 6 July, 16 July, and 18 September 2018 . Consultations had been held on 28 August 
and 22 October 2018. However, these consultations had failed to resolve th is dispute . At the 
18 December  2018 DSB meeting, China had made its first request for the establishment of a panel 
in this dispute . Due to the urgency of this dispute, which continue d to damage China 's legitimate 
economic and trade interests as well as the rules -based multilateral trading system, China had 
decided to make a second reque st for the establishment of a panel at the present meeting in 
accordance with WTO rules. The subject of this request was the US imposition of a 25% additional 
duty on US$34 billion of imports from China, and, subsequently, a 10% additional duty on 
US$200  billion of imports from China. When it  had made its first request for the establishment of a 
panel at the 18 December 2018 DSB meeting, China ha d already explained in great detail the US 
measures at issue. China  had made it clear : these unilateral actions t aken by the United States  had 
not only infringed China 's rights and interests under the covered agreements, but they had also 
flagrantly violated various WTO rules and the fundamental principles of this Organization, such as 
non-discrimination, bound tarif fs and the strengthening of the multilateral system, as set forth in 
Article I and Article II of the GATT 1994, as well as Article 23 of the DSU respectively. If the United 
States were free to continue infringing these principles without consequences, the future viability of 
this Organization was in dire peril. China believe d it was important to all Members that unilateral 
actions, such as the one employed by the United States  under Section 301 , should have no room in 
this Organization. At the 18 December 2 018 DSB meeting, the United States had attempted  to justify 
its unilateral imposition of additional tariffs by citing grievances regarding certain Chin ese acts, 
policies and practices identified in its Section 301 report. However, despite the validity of such 
assertions, the unilateral nature of the US measures blatantly r an against the very clear rules and 
principles agreed by the whole Membership , including itself. Contrary to US critiques, China 's action 
of referring this dispute to the WTO dispute settlement system at the present meeting reaffirm ed its 
strong support and commitment to the rules -based multilateral trading system and was helping to 
strengthen the viability of the system. To conclude his China's  intervention, he reiterate d his 
country's  position taken  at the 18 December 2018  DSB meeting : the US measures appear ed to 
violate the provisions of Article I and Article II of the GATT 1994, as well as the Article 23 of the 
DSU. At the present meeting , China f ormally ma de its second request that the DSB establish a panel 
to examine  this matter . China  firmly believe d that the DSB w ould deal with this matter in an objective 
and fair manner.  
5.3.  The representative  of the United  States  said that at the 18 December 2018  DSB meeting , the 
United States had noted that China intend ed to do, and was doing, great damage to the international 
trading system. China damage d this system, which ha d brought China tremendous economic gains, 
both through its grossly unfair  and trade -distorting forced technology transfer policies and practices 
and through this unfounded dispute.  First, in bringing this dispute, China s ought  to use the WTO 
dispute settlement system as a shield for a broad range of trade -distorting policies an d practices not 
covered by WTO rules. In doing so, it was China, and certainly not the United States, that was 
threatening the overal l viability of the WTO system. Second, China 's request was entirely 
hypocritical. China was currently damaging the United S tates not only through its forced technology 
transfer practices but additionally by imposing discriminatory duties on over  US$100 billion in US 
exports. So , while China with one hand point ed an accusing finger at US tariff measures for being 
"unilateral " and WTO -inconsistent, with the other hand China point ed a finger squarely at itself by 
adopting its own "unilateral " tariff measures in connec tion with the very same issue. Third, in these 
circumstances, the outcome of any dispute settlement proceeding woul d be pointless. As the 
United  States had  noted, China ha d already taken the unilateral decision that the US measures c ould 
not be justified, and China ha d already imposed tariff measures on US goods. Accordingly, the 
United  States regretted that China had chosen for a second time to request the establishment of a 
panel with regard to this matter. This action suggested China was not serious about addressing the 
legitimate concerns of its trading partners over Chinese technology transfer practices that no one  
could describe or defend as fair.   
5.4.  The representative  of China  said that his country simply wished  to provide a brief response to 
the US statement. With respect to US claims against China 's economic policy, his country wished  to 
point out that the findings of the Section 301 investigations were a wilful distortion of facts and were 
full of selective assertions and allegations. China wished  to refer to its statements made at  previous WT/DSB/M/425  
 
- 14 - 
 
  General Council meetings, CTG meetings as we ll as DSB meetings in 2018 . His delegation was  certain  
that in those statements, China ha d fully rebutted the a rguments repeated by the United  States at 
the present meeting . With respect to the US measures under Section 301 of the United States Trade 
Act of 1974, it was well settled among various stakeholders that these measures were unilateral in 
nature and were per se inconsistent with US WTO obligations. China saw  no reason how attacking 
China or blaming China 's policy could provide any legitimacy to the  notorious and unilateral 
Section  301 US measures.  
5.5.  The DSB took note of the statements and agree d to establish a panel in accordance with the 
provisions of Article  6 of the DSU , with standard terms of reference.  
5.6.  The representatives of Brazil , Canada , the European Union , India, Indonesia , Japan , 
Kazakhstan , Korea , New Zealand , Norway , the Russian Federation , Singapore , Chinese Taipei  and 
Ukraine  reserved their third -party rights to participate in the Panel's proceedings.  
6  TURKEY – ADDITIONAL DUTIES ON CERTAIN PR ODUCTS FROM THE UNITED  STATES  
A.  Request for the establishment of a panel by the  United States (WT/DS561/2)  
6.1.  The Chairperson  recall ed that the DSB  had considered this matter at its meeting on 
11 January  2019 and had agreed to revert to it. She then drew attention to the communication from 
the United  States containe d in document WT/DS561/2 and invite d the representative of the 
United  States to speak . 
6.2.  The representative  of the United States  said that t he United States had explained that the US 
actions taken on imports of steel and aluminium pursuant to Section 232 were to address a threat 
to its na tional security.  Every sovereign ha d the right to take action it consider ed necessary for the 
protect ion of its essential security. This inherent right had not been forfeited in 1947 with the GATT 
or in 1994  with the creation of the WTO. Instead, this right had been enshrined in Article XXI of the 
GATT 1994. The actions of the United States were completely  justified under this Article. What 
remain ed inconsistent with the WTO Agreement, however, was the unilateral retaliation against the 
United States by various WTO Members including Turkey.  These Members pretend ed that the US 
actions under Section 232 were so-called "safeguards ", and claim ed that their unilateral, retaliatory 
duties constitute d suspension of substantially equivalent concessions under the WTO Agreement on 
Safeguards . Just as these Members appear ed to be ready to undermine the dispute settlement 
system by ignoring the plain meaning of Article XXI and 70 years of practice, so too were they ready 
to undermine the WTO by pretending to follow its rules while imposing measures that blatantly 
disregard ed them.  The additional, retaliatory duties were nothing other than duties in excess of 
Turkey 's WTO commitments and were applied only to the United States, contrary to Turkey 's 
most-favoured -nation obligation.  The United States w ould not permit its businesses, farmers, and 
workers to be targeted in this WTO -inconsistent way.  For these reasons, the United States request ed 
that the DSB establ ish a panel to examine this matter with standard terms of reference.  
6.3.  The representative  of Turkey  said that his country  regret ted that the United States was 
requesting , for the second time , the establishment of a panel  in this dispute . As Turkey had  
previo usly stated many times, the root of this dispute was not the Turkish measures that were 
formally challenged by the United States.  Rather, the real reason was the US decision taken in 2018  
to impose unwarranted and unjustified unilateral measures on imports of steel and aluminium . At 
the 11 January 2019  DSB meeting and at the present meeting , the United States ha d stated that 
Turkey and certain other WTO Members were pretending that the US measures were safeguards and 
were pretending that the tariff action taken in response was the suspension of concessions. Turkey 
did not pretend anything. Turkey firmly believe d – and w ould demonstrate – that the US measures 
were safeguards  within the meani ng of Article  XIX of the GATT 1994 and the Agreement on 
Safeguards, and that Turkey 's response was a suspension of concessions unde r the Agreement on 
Safeguards. It was instead the United States that was pretending that its measures were national 
security measures under Article XXI of the GATT  1994. They were not. They were by their very 
nature, their purpose and their design, economically -motivated safeguard measures. Turkey was 
confident that it w ould prevail in this dispute and look ed forward to the esta blishment of the panel 
and to the opportunity to provide a detailed explanation of its measures and of its legal analysis. 
Turkey st ood ready to engage in discussions with the United States as a lon g-standing WTO Member 
that was deeply committed to its WTO  obligations and to the multilateral trading system at large.  WT/DSB/M/425  
 
- 15 - 
 
  6.4.  The representative  of the European Union  said that at the 11 January 2019 DSB  meeting , the 
DSB had considered this panel request  for the first time . As Members  knew, it relate d to Turkey 's 
suspension of GATT obligations in response to the undeclared safeguard measures which the 
United States had taken  to protect its steel and aluminium industries against imports. At the present 
meeting , the DSB w ould establish a panel, which cou ld mark the end of a long series of DSB meetings 
in each of which the DSB had consider ed panel requests in relation to either the safeguard measures 
which the U nited States had taken starting in March 2018 or to the suspension of GATT obligations 
in respon se. This series, in and of itself , was testimony to the strength of the opposition which the 
US measures on steel and aluminium ha d generated across the world. Likewise, the number of cases 
of suspension of GATT obligations was testimony to the strength of this opposition. Time and again, 
the United States made  at the DSB  hardly changing statements that were intended to make all 
Members  believe that the U nited States,  in good fait h, had taken the necessary measures to protect 
its essential security interests , and that the other WTO Members , in bad faith , had resorted to action 
that was not allowed. The EU was confident that these disputes w ould above  all demonstrate that 
the rules -based multilateral trading system was good enoug h and strong enough to not allow the 
form of abuse of Article XXI of the GATT 1994 present in this case. This case d id not fit under the 
requirements of that Article but merely serve d to protect two US industries against competition from 
imports. The EU was likewise confident that these disputes w ould confirm the right of WTO Members 
to resort to their right of suspension under the WTO Agreement on Safeguards, when a safeguard 
measure ha d actually been taken, irrespective of how the Member in qu estion ha d called its measure.  
6.5.  The representative  of the United States  said that Turkey 's approach for the retaliatory action 
at issue ma de clear that, like the United States, it d id not consider the Safeguards Agreement to be 
applicable in this dispute. For example, Turkey ha d not addressed whether its action was in response 
to an alleged "safeguard " taken as a result of a n absolute increase in imports.  If there had been  an 
absolute increase, the right to suspend substantially equivalent concessions under the Safeguard s 
Agreement could  not be exercised for the first three years of the safeguard measure.  The 
United  States d id not understand how Turkey c ould claim to be following the Sa feguards Agreement 
without actually following what the Safeguards Agreement sa id. There was no doubt that Article XIX 
of the GATT 1994 could  be invoked by a Member to depart temporarily from its commitments in 
order to take emergency action with respect to  increased imports. The United States, however, was 
not invoking Article XIX as a basis for its Section 232 actions and ha d not utilized its domestic law 
on safeguards. Thus, Article XIX and the Safeguards Agreement were not relevant to the US actions 
under Section 232.  Because the United States was not invoking Article XIX, there was no basis for 
another Member to pretend that Article XIX should have been invoked and to use safeguards rules 
that were simply inapplicable.  
6.6.  The representative  of Turkey  said that Members were not bound by the US characterization of 
the measures, since the US measures were merely guided by economic purposes and consist ed of 
all substantive elements of a safeguard measure. As Turkey had  underlined several times, the import 
restrictions on steel and aluminium had been  taken by the United States in order to protect the US 
industry from the economi c effects of competing imports.  They were "emergency measures " to 
protect its domestic industry, within the meaning of Article XIX o f the GATT 1994 and the Agreement 
on Safeguards, that had suspend ed US concessions and other obl igations. In this regard, Turkey 
had requested , on 20 April 2018  and under Article 12.3 of the Agreement on Safeguards , to engage 
in consultations to achieve pr ecisely the  goals set out in Article 8.1  of the Agreement on Safeguards . 
Equally important,  when imposing its measures on steel and aluminium, the United States had made 
no attempt, under Article 8.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, to maintain a balance of  equivalent 
concessions and WTO obligations. Turkey had been  fully entitled , under Article 8 of the Agreement 
on Safeguards, to withdraw equivalent concessions and Turkey ha d acted fully in accordance with 
its rights and obligations under Article XIX of the GATT 1994 and the Agreement on Safeguards.  
6.7.  The DSB took note of the statements and agree d to establish a panel in accordance with the 
provisions of Article  6 of the DSU , with standard terms of reference.  
6.8.  The representatives of Brazil , Canada , China , the European Union , Guatemala , India, Indonesia , 
Japan , Kazakhstan , Mexico , New Zealand , Norway , the Russian Federation , Singapore , Switzerland , 
Chinese Taipei , Thailand , Ukraine  and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  reserved their third -party 
rights to p articipate in the Panel's proceedings.  WT/DSB/M/425  
 
- 16 - 
 
  7  APPELLATE BODY APPOI NTMENTS: PROPOSAL BY  ARGENTINA; AUSTRALI A; THE 
PLURINATIONAL STATE OF BOLIVIA; BRAZIL; CANADA; CHILE; CHINA ; COLOMBIA; 
COSTA  RICA;  CUBA;  DOMINICAN  REPUBLIC;  ECUADOR; EGYPT; EL  SALVADOR; THE 
EUROPEAN  UNION; GUAT EMALA; HONDURAS; HON G KONG, CHINA; ICELA ND; INDIA; 
INDONESIA; ISRAEL; K AZAKHSTAN; KOREA;  LIECHTENSTEIN; MEXICO; NEW  ZEALAND;  
NICARAGUA; NORWAY; P AKISTAN; PANAMA; PAR AGUAY; PERU; THE 
RUSSIAN  FEDERATION; SINGAPORE; SWITZERLA ND; THE SEPARATE CUS TOMS 
TERRITORY OF TAIWAN,  PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU;  THE FORMER YUGOSLAV  
REPUBLIC OF MACEDONI A; TURKEY; UKRAINE; UR UGUAY; THE BOLIVARIA N REPUBLIC OF 
VENEZUELA AND VIET  NAM (WT/DSB/W/609/REV .7) 
7.1.  The Chairperson  said t his item was on the Agenda of the present  meeting at the request of 
Mexico, on behalf of severa l delegations. She then drew attention to the proposal contained in 
document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.7 and invite d the representative of Mexico to spe ak. 
7.2.  The representative  of Mexico , speaking on behalf of co -sponsors of the proposal contained  
document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.7 , said that the delegations in question  had agreed to submit the 
joint proposal dated 6 December  2018 to launch the AB selection proces ses. His delegation , on 
behalf of these 71 Members, w ished  to state the following . The considerable number of Members 
submitting this joint proposal reflect ed a common concern with the current situation in the Appellate 
Body that was seriously affecting its workings and the overall dispute settlement system against the 
best interest of its Members. WTO Members ha d a responsibility to safeguard and preserve the 
Appellate Body, the dispute settlement system and the multilateral trading system. Thus, it was the 
Members' duty  to launch the AB selection processes, as set out  at the present meeting . This proposal 
sought  to: (i) start four selection processes: one proc ess to replace Mr. Ricardo Ramírez -Hernández, 
whose second term expired on 30 June 2017; a second process to fill the vacancy that 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 expired on 11 December 2017; and a fourth process 
to replace Mr. Shree Baboo Chekitan Servansing,  whose four -year term of office expire d on 
30 September  2018; (ii) to establish a Selection Committee; (iii) to set a deadline o f 30 days for the 
submission of candi dates ; and (iv) to request that the Selection Committee issue its 
recommendation s within 60  days after the deadline for nominations of candidates . The proponents 
were flexible with regard to the deadlines for the select ion processes, but  believed that  Members  
should consider the urgency of the situation. Mexico  continue d to urge all Members to support this 
proposal in the interest of the multilateral trad ing system and the dispute settlement system . 
7.3.  The representative of Mexico , speaking  on behalf of Mexico  only, said that a s had been stated 
on several occasions, the Appellate Body was a key element  of the WTO dispute settlement system . 
This was why it should be a priority for all Members to ensure its proper functioning.  It was 
fundamental for the Appellate Body to have a full contingent. According to the DSU, the WTO dispute 
settlement system was "a central element in providing security and predictability to the multilateral 
trading system", and it h ad benefit ted all Members. However, despite many attempts made by 
various delegations, the Appellate Body  consisted of only  three out of the seven members that it 
should comprise. Mexico ha d grave concerns, which were becoming increasingly pressing. Mexico , 
once again , called on Members to address, in a responsible manner, the current situation whereby , 
for over a year and a half, Members had  been unable to launch the AB selection process es. In failing 
to do this, Members we re clearly disregarding the ir obligation  set out  in Article 17.2 of the DSU, to 
fill such vacancies as soon as they arose . This situation was unacceptable and w ould have a serious 
systemic impact for the Organization . Members had to  stop the practice of raising conce rns without 
proposing solutions , especially given the current crisis faced by the multilateral dispute settlement 
system. Mexico wished to reiterate  its call for Members to ensure that the AB selection processes 
were initiated as a matter of urgency, and f or the Member that had raised concerns to take into 
consideration the willingness demonstrated by other Members to engage in discussions and seek a 
solution to these concerns . Nevertheless, Mexico  wished to emphasize that the achievement of such 
a solution  could  not prevent compliance with the legal obligations of Members . There were currently 
proposals before the General Council that s ought  to address the concerns that ha d been raised, and 
that alone should be sufficient for th e AB selection  process es to be agreed by Members at the present 
meeting  in compliance with the DSU, and for these processes  to be delinked from any other concern.  
7.4.  The representative  of the European Union  said that his delegation  wished to refer to its 
statements made on this issue at previous DSB meetings, starting in February 2017 . WTO Members 
had a shared responsibility to resolve this issue as soon as possible and to fill the outstanding WT/DSB/M/425  
 
- 17 - 
 
  vacancies as required by Article 17.2 of the DSU.  The EU wished to thank all Members that 
co-sponsored the proposal contained in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.7  to launch the AB selection 
processes.  The EU  invite d all other Members to endorse this proposal, so that the appointments 
could be made as soon as po ssible. The EU also wished to recall that concrete proposals had been 
submitted to the General Council  (WT/GC/W/752/Rev.2 and WT/GC/W/753/Rev.1) with a view to 
unblocking the AB selection processes . These proposals constitute d a serious effort to address t he 
concerns that ha d been voiced in connection with the AB appointments. They were currently  being 
discussed under the auspices of  the General Council. The EU  invite d all Members to engage 
constructively in these discussions so that the AB vacancies could  be filled as soon as possible .  
7.5.  The representative of the United States  said that t he United States thank ed the Chair person  
for the continued work on these issues . As the United States had explained at prior DSB meetings, 
the United States  was not in a position to support the proposed decision  contained in document 
WT/DSB/W/609/Rev. 7. The systemic concerns that the United States had identified remained 
unaddressed . As the United States had explained at recent DSB meetings, for more than 15 years 
and across multiple US Administrations, the United States had been raising serious concerns with 
the Appellate Body's disregard for the rules set by WTO Members . Through persist ent overreaching, 
the WTO Appellate Body had been adding obligations that had never been agreed by the United 
States and other WTO Members.  The 2018 US Trade Policy Agenda had outlined several 
long-standing US concerns .7 The United States had raised repeated concerns that appellate reports 
had gone far beyond the text setting out WTO rules in varied areas, such as subs idies, anti -dumping 
duties , anti-subsidy duties, standards and technical barriers to trade, and safeguards, restricting the 
ability of the United States to regulate in the public interest or protect US workers and businesses 
against unfair trading practices . And as the United States ha d explained at recent DSB  meetings, 
the Appellate Body had issued advisory opinions on issues not necessa ry to resolve a dispute and 
had reviewed panel fact -finding despite appeals being limited to legal issues.  Furthermore, the 
Appellate Body had asserted that panels must follow its reports although Members had not agreed 
to a system of precedent in the WTO,  and had continuously disregarded the 90 -day mandatory 
deadline for appeals – all contrary to the WTO 's agreed dispute settlement ru les. And for more than 
a year, the United States ha d been calling for WTO Members to correct the situation where the 
Appella te Body act ed as if it ha d the power to permit ex -Appellate Body members to continue to 
decide appeals even after their term of office – as set by the WTO Members – had expired.  This 
so-called "Rule 15 " was, on its face, another example of the Appellate Bo dy's disregard for the WTO 's 
rules.  US concerns ha d not been addressed.  When the Appellate Body abuse d the authority it had 
been given within the dispute settlement system, it undermine d the legitimacy of the system and 
damage d the interests of all WTO Mem bers who care d about having the agreements respected as 
they had been  negotiated and agreed.  The United States would  continue to insist that WTO rules be 
followed by the WTO dispute settlement system, and would  continue its efforts and its discussions 
with Members and with the Chair person  to seek a solution on these important issues . 
7.6.  The representative  of Canada  said th at his country  support ed the statement made at the 
present meeting by Mexico. It ha d been twenty months since the launch of the AB selection 
processes  had been  first proposed. Canada deeply regret ted that the DSB ha d not been able to 
comply with its legal obligation under Article 17.2 of the DSU to appoint Appellate Body members to 
fill the vacancies. The text of the DSU was clear: "[v]acancies shall be filled as they arise". This 
requirement d id not provide for exceptions or justifications not to replenish the Appellate Body. The 
inability to select and appoint new Appellate Body members c ould only increase the necessity to rely 
on Rule 15  of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review . This situ ation was at odds with the 
concerns that the United States ha d expressed regarding that practice. Canada share d the 
disappointment expressed by several other Members regarding the U S decision not to join the 
consensus to move forward with the proposal  contained in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev. 7. Canada  
called on the United States to engage in solution -focused discussions with interested Members 
regarding the concerns that it ha d raised. Canada remain ed committed to working with other 
interested Members, includ ing the United States, with a view to address ing those concerns and 
undertak ing the AB selection process es expeditiously. Canada  invite d the Members who had not yet 
sponsor ed the proposal to give it the attention it deserve d, and to support it.  
7.7.  The repres entative  of Cuba, speaking  on behalf of the GRULAC , said that Cuba  wishe d to 
reiterate their deep concern with the prolonged impasse in the AB selection processes  as a result of 
the blockage to which these processes ha d been subjected . This situation affect ed the functioning 
                                                
7 Office of the US Trade Representative, 2018 President's Trade Policy Agenda, at 22 -28. WT/DSB/M/425  
 
- 18 - 
 
  of one of the central organs of the WTO and entail ed a blatant viol ation of an obligation that 
emanate d from an agreement adopted by WTO Membe rs. Cuba was aware of  the concerns  that ha d 
been raised  with respect to the functioning of the Appellate Body , which prevented Members from  
launching of the AB selection processes . However, the search for solutions to these concerns should 
not be an obstac le to the continued functioning of the system.  Cuba wished to  reiterate that reading  
of Article 17 of the DSU in conjunction with Article 2 of the DSU did not indicate that positive 
consensus was required to launch the AB selection processes. Cuba reiterated  its call on the 
Chairperson  to continue with her efforts to find a solution to this problem .   
7.8.  The representative  of India said that her country wished to refer to its statements made at 
previous DSB meetings on this matter and reiterate d its serious concerns about the current impasse 
in filling vacancies in the Appellate Body and its effect on the credibility of the WTO. India wished to 
thank the General Council Chair for launching an informal process  for focussed discussions on 
Appellate Body issues on 17 January 2019. India welcome d the appointment of Ambassador David 
Walker as Facilitator to assist the GC Chair in this process and assure d him of India's  full support . 
India, along with the European Union and some other Members, ha d put for ward concrete textual 
proposals with a view to addressing the concerns raised. India was  encouraged to note that a 
significant number of WTO Members had acknowledged these proposals as being a good basis for 
initiating an open, inclusive and expeditious process for unblocking the AB appointments. If any 
Member fe lt that these proposals d id not sufficiently address their concerns, then India urged such 
Member  to table concrete proposal s of its own, with a view to finding a solution and not merely 
reiterating the problem. India strongly believe d that instead of engaging in general critiques of the 
Appellate Body, the focus should be on solution -oriented approaches that would explor ways in which 
the concerns with the functioning of the A ppellate Body could be addressed in a manner that 
accommodate d the interests of the entire Membership and preserve d the essential features of the 
dispute settlement system. India called on all Members to participate constructively in the informal 
process  with a view to reaching an expeditious resolution to the existential crisis facing the 
Appellate  Body.  
7.9.  The representative  of Brazil  said that in 2019 , the terms  of two of the remaining three Appellate 
Body members w ould expire. If nothing was done, in December 2019, the Membership w ould witness 
the shutdown of an organ that was quintessential to the  WTO dispute settlement system.  Time was 
of the essence. Members  had heard the issues raised . Although his country  did not necessarily share 
these concerns , Brazil  was open and ready to engage in pragmatic discussions regarding these 
issues . Over the past two years , Members had been  very clear  in DSB meetings : the urgent priority 
was to fill the vacancies in the Appellate Body. That was a gateway issue. Otherwise, Members  might  
not have a functioning Appellate Body after December 2019.  Members we re at a crossroads.  The 
pathway to the AB 's norma lization was not yet clear.  Brazil  believe d that Members should have a 
clear understanding of all objectives, so that the Membership c ould properly address the concerns 
raised.  Not having a functioning Appellate Body  would not only be regrettable, but woul d mean a 
departure from  the DSU  text, which state d that the DSB had to  establish a "standing Appellate 
Body". Therefore, Brazil believe d that Members'  main goal should be to find a clear path to filling 
those vacancies. To this end, Members had to  understa nd what solution was possible. Brazil  also 
wished to thank Mexico for its statement made at the present meeting on behalf of the co -sponsors.  
7.10.   The representative  of Japan  said that his country  support ed the proposal  contained in 
document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev. 7 to launch the AB selection processes for four vacancies in the 
Appellate Body.  Japan note d that an informal process  has been initiated under the auspice s of the 
General Council to have focused discussions on Appellate Body matter s. WTO M embers had to  fully 
engage in the informal process  with a solution -oriented spirit so as  to restore and improve the proper 
functioning of the WTO dispute settlement mechanism . Japan looked forward to actively participating 
in this informal  process  with other WTO Members.  
7.11.   The representative  of China  said that his country  wished  to echo the statement made by 
Mexico on behalf of 71 Members  under this Agenda item . Ensuring the integrity and fu nctioning of 
the Appellate Body was not only a collective obligation of Members, but it also serve d the common 
interests of the whole M embershi p. China regret ted that the collective efforts by these Members 
was, once again , frustrated by a particular Member’s persistent blockage o f the AB selection 
process es without any legitimacy . Article 17.2 of the DSU clearly stated that:  "[v]acancies shall be 
filled as they a rise". The choice of using "shall" in this provision  was more than adequate to suggest 
the Members' duty to launch  the AB selection process es. There could be  no legitimate reason for 
any Member to block it, and it could  not be subject to any other precondi tion than a vacancy. Even WT/DSB/M/425  
 
- 19 - 
 
  so, China note d that Members ha d made earnest efforts to address the concerns of the Member and 
to safeguard the dispute settlement system. Various proposals ha d been tabled to break the current 
impasses , including the joint propo sals co -sponsored by the EU, China and other Members which 
had been  discussed at the 12 December 2018  General Council meeting and at the informal  
open-ended meeting held on  17 January 2019 . Such efforts ha d already formed a solid basis for 
future consultat ions. It was time for the Member concerned, the United States, to table its 
constructive proposals so as to substantiate the discussions.  China believe d when Members ha d 
different views on any specific concern, constructive and solution -orientated discussion was the only 
way to move forward. China call ed on all Members to have meaningful and substantive participation 
in the relevant process and to strive to solve the current AB selection impasse without further delay.  
7.12.   The representative o f Australia  said that her country  wished to refer to its statements made 
at previous DSB meetings on this matter and to reiterate its serious concerns regarding the DSB 's 
inability to launch the AB selection  process es. In this respect, Australia  welcome d the recently 
initiated informal process under the auspices of the General Council as a positive step forward . 
Australia  hoped that through the pragmatic and solution -focused work, Members  would be able to 
find mutually agreeable outcomes and allow Members t o fill the vacancies on the Appellate Body 
soon as possible. Australia was committed to actively engage in this process and hope d that all 
Members w ould, in good faith, join Australia  in this endeavour.  
7.13.   The representative of  New Zealand  said that his deleg ation wished to  reiterate its support for 
the co -sponsored proposal  contained in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev. 7 and to refer to its 
statements made at previous DSB meetings on this matter . New Zealand  emphasi zed the importance 
of launch ing the AB selection process es as soon as possible. New Zealand  was a staunch supporter 
of the multilateral dispute settlement system and ha d repeatedly emphasi zed the importance of 
looking to find solutions to the current impasse through discussions among Members. New Zealand , 
therefore , was pleased that an informal process under the auspices of the General Council has begun, 
with a focus on a solution -oriented discussion.  
7.14.   The representative  of Chinese Taipei  said that his delegation  wished to refer to its statements  
made at previous DSB meetings . Chinese Taipei  would, and it encourage d all Members to , 
constructively engage in t he discussions  under the auspices of the General Council.  Chinese Taipei 
hoped those discussions could lead Members  to a solution to the present impasse.  
7.15.   The representative  of Singapore  said that his country wished to refer to its statements made 
at previous DSB meetings and reiterated its serious systemic concerns on the failure to launch the 
AB selection processes . More appeals cont inued to be filed even as the number of Appellate Body 
members decreased by attrition . Given the strain that the Appellate Body was facing, Singapore 
called on Members to bear this in mind when considering the filing of appeals  Systemic issues which 
had be en raised could be discussed in a separate process . In this regard, while Singapore welcomed 
and supported the informal process for focused discussions led by the Facilitator under the auspices 
of the General Council , Singapore  wished to emphasi ze that that A B selection process es should still 
be allowed to proceed unconditionally. Singapore st ood ready to engage constructively and 
collaboratively to help resolve this impasse.  
7.16.   The representative of Thailand  said that her country  wished to refer to its sta tements made 
at previous DSB meetings on this matter . Thailand wished to reiterate its serious systemic concern 
over the current impasses. To ensure the proper functioning of the WTO 's rules-based trading 
system, Thailand support ed the launching of the AB selection processes as soon as possible. The 
discussion of any systemic concern which ha d been raised, including a s part of  the informal process 
under the auspices of the General Council, c ould be address ed separately and should not prevent 
the launch  of the AB selection processes. Thailand remain ed committed to working constructively 
with all Members to resolve the Appellate Body impasse as a priority.  
7.17.   The representative  of Mexico  said that his  delegation,  speaking  on behalf of the 
71 co-sponsors of th e proposal  contained in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev. 7, wished  to express its  
regret that for the twentieth  occasion, Members had  still not been able to start the AB selection 
processes , and that they had  thus continuously failed to fulfil their duty as Member s of this 
Organization . The fact that a Member m ight have concerns about certain aspects of t he functioning 
of the Appellate  Body c ould not serve as pretext to impair and disrupt its work. There was no legal 
justification for the current blocking of the AB selection process es, which resulted in nullification and 
impairment for many Members . As Article 17.2 of the DSU clearly state d: "[v]acancies shall be filled WT/DSB/M/425  
 
- 20 - 
 
  as they arise ". By failing to act at the present meeting , Members  would maintain the current 
situation , which was seriously affecting the work of the Appellate Body against the best interest of 
all WTO Members . 
7.18.   The representative  of Switzerland  said that her country  wished to refer to its statements made 
on this matter at previous DSB meetings. She said that Switzerland regret ted that the DSB continue d 
to be unable to launch the AB selection processes towards filling the Appellate Body vacancies . 
Switzerland  noted with satisfaction the constructive discussion that had taken  place under the 
auspices of the General Council on 17  January  2019. This discussion show ed that Members were 
willing to engage constructively in order to find a way forward. Switzerland believe d that the different 
communications regarding dispute settlement matters that were currently  on the table form ed a 
comprehensive basis to address the concerns that ha d been raised concerning the functioning of the 
dispute settlement system. Switzerland look ed forward to deepening the discussion in that process 
and to de vising concrete solutions.  
7.19.   The representative  of Korea  said that his country  share d the deep concerns and the sense of 
urgency regarding the need to fill the vacancies in the Appellate Body.  Korea support ed the 
statement made by Mexico at the present meeting based on the joint proposal contained in document 
WT/DSB/W/609/Rev. 7, which Korea co -sponsor ed.  Korea  also look ed forward to making good 
progress in the discussions under the auspices of the General Cou ncil. 
7.20.   The representative  of Norway  said that her country  wished to refer to its statements made at 
previous  DSB meetings under this Agenda item. Norway wished to  reiterate its serious concerns 
about the current impasse in the Appellate Body. Norway  deeply regret ted that the United States 
still could not join consensus and did not support the proposal to launch the AB selection process es. 
Norway  continue d to urge t he United States to join consensus without any further delay. 
Nevertheless, Norway  was encouraged by the fact that discussions ha d begun in the informal process 
under the auspices of the General Council. Norway  looked forward to the continuation of those 
discussions and would  engage constructively with Members.  
7.21.   The representative  of Turkey  said that his country  also wished to refer to its statements made 
at previous DSB meetings and to reiterate its concerns with the current deadlock. As a co -sponsor 
of the proposal contained in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev. 7, Turkey  underline d that Members had 
to launch the AB selection processes for the vacancies of the Appellate Body without further dela y, 
as required by Article 17.2 of the DSU. It was the responsibility of all Members  to do so . Currently, 
causing significant delay  to the processes, this issue adversely affect ed all Members, including 
Turkey, which had  two cases under  appeal. Turkey was  pleased that there were currently  tabled 
proposals that address ed several topics on which to improve, including procedural and systemic 
issues which had been  discussed thoroughly in recent weeks. However, Turkey  believe d that these 
discussions should not be  linked to the launching of the AB selection processes and should be dealt 
with separately. Turkey st ood ready to engage constructively to help overcome this impasse and 
would invite all Members  to engage in the discussions  in these matters.    
7.22.   The Chairperson  thank ed all delegations for their statements. She said that a s in the past, 
the DSB w ould take note of the statements expressing the respective positions, which w ould be duly 
reflected in the minutes of this meeting. A s Members we re aware, this matter require d a political 
engagement on the part of all WTO Members. To this effect, under the auspices of the General 
Council, Ambassador David Walker of New Zealand had agreed to assist the Chair person  of the 
General Council,  as Facilitator, in an informal process  of focused discussions on Appellate 
Body matters. The first informal meeting chaired by Amb assador  Walker had been  held on 
17 January 2019. Ambassador  Walker would continue his efforts with a view to reporting back t o 
the General Council at its 28 February  2019 meeting.  
7.23.   The DSB took note of the statements.  
__________