RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DSB/M/426  
 
20 May 2019 
(19-1941) Page: 1/17 
Dispute Settlement Body  
25 February 2019   
 
MINUTES OF MEETING  
HELD IN THE CENTRE W ILLIAM RAPPARD  
ON 25 FEBRUARY  2019 
Chairperson: Ms. Sunanta Kangvalkulkij (Thailand)  
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  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 2 
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  repor t by the European  Union  ................................ ................................ .....................  4 
D.  United  States – Anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential washers from 
Korea: Status r eport 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  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  6 
G.  United  States  – Anti-dumping measures on certain oil country tubular goods from Korea: 
Status report b y the United  States  ................................ ................................ ........................  7 
H.  Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products: Status report 
by Indonesia  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  8 
2   UNITED  STATES – CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT OF  2000: 
IMPLEMENTATION OF TH E RECOMMENDATIONS AD OPTED BY THE  DSB ..........................  9 
A.  Statement  by the European  Union  ................................ ................................ ....................  9 
3   EUROPEAN  COMMUNITIES AND CER TAIN MEMBER STATES – MEASURES AFFECTING 
TRADE IN LARGE CIVIL  AIRCRAFT: IMPLEMENT ATION OF THE RECOMME NDATIONS 
ADOPTED BY THE DSB  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 9 
A.  Statement  by the United  States  ................................ ................................ .......................  9 
4   TURKEY  – ADDITIONAL DUTIES  ON IMPORTS OF AIR C ONDITIONING MACHINES  
FROM THAILAND  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  11 
A.  Request  for the establishment of a panel by Thailand  ................................ ........................ 11 WT/DSB/M/426  
 
- 2 - 
 
  5   APPELLATE BODY A PPOINTMENT S: PROPOSAL BY ARGEN TINA; AUSTRALIA; BEN IN; 
THE PLURINATIONAL ST ATE OF BOLIVIA; BRAZ IL; CANADA; CHILE; C HINA; COLOMBIA; 
COSTA  RICA; CUBA; DO MINICAN  REPUBLIC; EC UADOR; EGYPT; EL  SALVADOR; THE 
EUROPEAN  UNION; GUAT EMALA; HONDURAS; HON G KONG, CHINA; ICELA ND; I NDIA; 
INDONESIA; ISRAEL; K AZAKHSTAN; KOREA; LI ECHTENSTEIN; MEXICO;  NEW  ZEALAND; 
NICARAGUA; NORWAY; P AKISTAN; PANAMA; PAR AGUAY; PERU; THE RUS SIAN  
FEDERATION; SINGAPOR E; SWITZERLAND; THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS TER RITORY OF 
TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINM EN AND MATSU; THE FO RMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLI C OF 
MACEDONIA; TURKEY; U KRAINE; URUGUAY; THE  BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC  OF VENEZUELA 
AND VIET  NAM  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  11 
 
1  SURVEILLANCE OF IMPL EMENTATION OF RECOMM ENDATIONS ADOPTED BY  THE DSB 
A.  United  States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from Japan: Status 
report by the United States ( WT/DS184/15/ Add.192)  
B.  United States – Section  110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/ Add.167)  
C.  European  Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products: 
Status report by the European  Union ( WT/DS291/37/ Add.130)  
D.  United  States – Anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential washers from 
Korea: Status report by the United States ( WT/DS464/17/ Add.14)  
E.  United  States – Certain methodologies  and their application to anti-dumping proceedings 
involving China: Status report by the United  States (WT/DS471/17/Add.6)  
F.  Indonesia – Measures concerning the importation of chicken meat and chicken products: Status 
report by Indonesia ( WT/DS484/18/Add .5) 
G.  United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain oil country tubular goods from Korea: Status 
report by the United States ( WT/DS488/12/ Add.5)  
H.  Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products: Status report 
by Indon esia (WT/DS477/21/Add.1 – WT/DS478/22/Add.1)  
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 decides otherwise, the issue of implementation of the 
recommendations or rulings shall be placed on the Agenda of the DSB meeting after six  months 
following the date of establishment of the reasonable period o f 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 th e Rules of Procedure for DSB meetings: " [r]epresentatives should make 
every effort to avoid the repetition of a full debate at each meeting on any issue that has already 
been fully debated in the past and on which there appears to have been no change in Me mbers' 
positions already on record".  She then turned to the first status report under this Agenda item . 
A.  United  States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from 
Japan: Status report  by the United  States ( WT/DS184/15/ Add.192)  
1.2.  The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS184/15/Add.192, which contain ed the 
status report by the United  States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations 
in the case concerning US  anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from Japan . 
1.3.  The representative of the United States  said that t he United  States had provided a status report 
in this dispute on 14 February 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 calculation of 
anti-dumping margins in the hot -rolled steel anti -dumping duty investigation at issue. With respect WT/DSB/M/426  
 
- 3 - 
 
  to the recommendations and rulings  of the DSB that ha d yet to be addressed, the US Administration 
would  work with the US Congress with respect to appropriate statutory measures that would r esolve 
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 rulings  so as to resolve this 
matter . 
1.5.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting.  
B.  United  States – Section  110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by the 
United  States ( WT/DS160 /24/ Add.167)  
1.6.  The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS160/24/Add.167, 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 U S Copyright Act . 
1.7.  The representative of the United States  said that the  United States had provided a status report 
in this dispute on 14 February  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 Congress, 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 statements  made at previous DSB meetings under this Agenda item . The EU said that it 
wished to resolve this case as soon as possible . 
1.9.  The representative of  China  said that his country  noted that the United States had submitted 
its 16 8th 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 . Almost  two decades after the DSB 
had adopted the Appellate Body r eport in this dispute , and without further imple mentation, the 
United States had  continu ously 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 ". 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 in this dispute without further delay . 
1.10.   The representativ e of the United States  said that as the United States  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 whi ch had resulted in 
the transfer and theft of intellectual property and technology to the detriment of the United States 
and its workers and businesses . In contrast, the intellectual property protection that the 
United  States provide d within its own territo ry equalled or surpa ssed that of any other Member . 
Indeed, none of the damaging technology transfer practices of China that the United States had 
discussed at recent DSB meetings were practices that Chinese companies or innovators face d in the 
United  State s.  
1.11.   The representative of  China  said that 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 this 
dispute. Obviously, the answer was negative.  In its statement under this Agenda item, the United 
States appeared to suggest its supremacy on the protection of intellectual property rights . However, 
given the simple fact that the United States had 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 failed to implement the DSB's recommendatio ns and rulings 
under the TRIPS Agreement, the US suggestion was clearly flawed in the absence of valid legal 
benchmarks . Regarding the US claims on China's intellectual property protection issues, China WT/DSB/M/426  
 
- 4 - 
 
  wished to refer to its statements delivered at variou s forums, including its statement made at the 
28 May 2018 DSB meeting . His country took its commitments under the TRIPS Agreement seriously. 
China welcomed and always stood ready to engage in good faith discussions with other Members 
concerning any intelle ctual 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 furthe r 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 this long in this dispute . 
1.12.   The DSB took note of the statements and agreed  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.130)  
1.13.   The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS291/37/Add.130, 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 bio tech 
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 14 January 2019, four draft authori zations had 
been presented for a vote in the Appeal  Committee, with a "no opinion" result . One authorization 
had been for the renewal of a genetically modified oilseed rape, two had been for new genetically 
modified ma ize seeds and one had been for a genetically modified cotton  seed. 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 genetically modified  maize seeds 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  on 22 February 2019. The EU continue d to be committed to act 
in line with its WTO obligations. More gen erally and a s 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 received approval. Further, even  when the EU finally approve d 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 , in the form of the 
amendment of EU Directive 2001/18 through EU Directive 2015/413, that permit ted EU member 
States to, in effect, restrict or proh ibit cultivation o f genetically -modified organisms (GMOs), even 
where the European Food Safety Authority ( "EFSA") had concluded that the product was safe. This 
legislation permit ted EU member States to restrict for non -scientific reasons certain uses of 
EU-authorized biotec h products in their territories by demanding that EU cultivation authorizations 
be adjusted to exclude portions of an EU member State 's territory from cultivation.  At least 17 EU 
member States, as well as certain regions within EU member States, ha d submit ted such reques ts. 
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 
Directive 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  GMOs. The United States took issue 
with the EU statement made at prior DSB meetings that this ECJ ruling d id not relate to previously 
authorized GMOs. This statement was contradicted by the EU Group of Chief Scientific Advisors ' 
statement, which recognize d that, "in view of the Court 's rulin g, it becomes evident that new 
scientific knowledge and recent technical developments have made the GMO Directive no longer fit 
for purpose ". The EU Group of Chief Scientific Advisors ' statement sp oke to the lack of scientific 
support for the regulatory fr amework under EU Directive 2001/18 /EC. Further, the statement note d 
that current scientific knowledge call ed into question the definition of "GMOs " under the Directive 
and note d that mutagenesis, as well as transgenesis, occur red naturally. The United Stat es urge d WT/DSB/M/426  
 
- 5 - 
 
  the EU to act in a manner that w ould 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 i ndividual 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 , in response to the US statement, the EU  
wished  to clarify that no EU member State ha d imposed any ban thus far. Moreover, under the terms 
of the "opt -out" Directive, an EU member State could adopt measures restricting or prohibiting 
cultivation only if such measures were  in line with EU law , reasoned, proportiona l, non-discriminatory 
and b ased on compelling grounds . His delegation wished  to recall that the opt -out Directive was not 
covered by the DSB 's recommendations and rulings  in this dispute . In its statement at the present 
meeting, t he United States had also referred to a judgment of t he European Court of Justice  (ECJ) , 
which had been issued in July 2018 . That judgment  provided important clarification on the scope of 
application of the legislation on genetically modified organisms  (GMOs) , in relation to organisms 
obtained by mutagenesis techniques. The ECJ had  ruled that organisms obtained by means of new 
techniques and methods of mutagenesis, which ha d appeared or ha d been mostly developed after 
the adoption of Directive 2001/18, f ell within the scope of th at Directive. The ECJ judgment ha d not 
extended the scope of the legislation. It ha d clarified how it should be read. The European 
Commission was currently working to ensure proper implementation of the ECJ judgment, together 
with the EU member States. The EU member States were responsible at the national level for the 
relevant control activities regarding the placing on the market of both products produced in the EU 
and products that were imported into the EU. To this effect, the Joint Research Centre was helping 
national laboratories to develop relevant detection methods. There ha d been many reactions to the 
ECJ judgment, bringing forward a wide range of different views. Among these, the Group of Chief 
Scientific Advisors of the Scienti fic Advice Mechanism had issued a statement which provided  a 
scientific perspective on the regulatory status of products derived from gene  editing . This statement 
focused  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 agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting.  
D.  United  States – Anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential 
washers from Korea: Status report by the United  States ( WT/DS464/17/ Add.14)  
1.18.   The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS464/17/Add.14, which contain ed the 
status report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations 
in the case concerning anti -dumping and countervailing measures on large residential washers from  
Korea . 
1.19.   The representative of the United States  said that the  United States had provided a status 
report in this dispute on 14 February  2019, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU . On 
15 December  2017, the US  Trade Representative had requested that the US Depart ment of 
Commerce ma ke 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 December  2017, the Department of Co mmerce had initiated a 
proceeding to make such determination . Following initiation, Commerce had issued initial and 
supplemental questionnaires seeking additional information . On 4 April 2018, Commerce had issued 
a preliminary determination revising certai n 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 the 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 interest ed parties on options to address the DSB 's 
recommendations relating to anti -dumping measures challenged in this dispute .  WT/DSB/M/426  
 
- 6 - 
 
  1.20.   The representative of  Korea  said that his country  wished to thank  the United States for its 
status reports and the statement made at the present meeting . Korea wished  to note that o n 
8 February 2019 , the WTO Arbitrato r had issued a decision on the level of suspension equivalent to 
the level of nullification and impairment. Korea wished to refer to its statements made at previous 
DSB meetings and urge d the United States to faithfully implement the DSB's rulings and 
recommendations 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 an d rulings in this dispute . In particular, Canada was 
deeply disappointed that, despite the expiry of the reasonable period of time, the United States 
continued to collect cash deposits from Canadian exporters based on a methodology that was found 
to be "as  such" inconsistent with WTO obligations in this dispute .  
1.22.   The DSB took note of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting.  
E.  United  States – Certain methodologies and their application to anti-dumping 
proceedings involving  China: Status report by the United  States (WT/DS471/17/Add.6)  
1.23.   The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS471/17/Add.6, which contain ed the 
status report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations 
in the case concerning certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping proceedings 
involving China . 
1.24.   The representative of the United States  said that the  United States  had provided a status 
report in this dispute on 14 February  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 sus pend concessions or other obligations and the matter ha d been referred to 
arbitration in line with 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 pr ogress by the U nited 
States to address the DSB 's recommendations in this dispute other than "consulting with the 
interested parties ". Due to its consistent non-compliance, 21 months after the DSB had adopted the 
Appellate Body report and the panel report i n this dispute, and six months after the expiry of the 
RPT, this dispute continued to be unresolved . China was very disappointed and deeply concerned 
with the progress of the United States 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, urged  the U nited States to take concrete actions, 
to fully respect WTO rules, and faithfully implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this 
dispute . 
1.26.   The DSB took note of the statements and agreed  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.5)  
1.27.   The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS484/18/Add.5, 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 . WT/DSB/M/426  
 
- 7 - 
 
  1.28.   The representat ive of Indonesia  said that h er country had submitted its status  report in 
accordance with Article 21.6 of the 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 recommendations 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 DS B's recommendations and 
rulings  in this dispute . The RPT had expired on 22 July 2018 . She said that  her country had 
undertaken necessary adjustments for the relevant measures. Indonesia  wished  to reiterate that all 
animals and animal products, both fresh a nd processed, imported into Indonesia had to  be 
accompanied with health or veterinary certificate s from their country of origin. Any modification 
made by an importer to information contained in the import licenses would not be subject to any 
sanction , as long as it was made in compliance with the applicable  procedure . Indonesia was 
processing Brazil 's veterinary certification questionnaire by referring to the relevant regulations 
without delay. Indonesia stood  ready to continue to consult  and would remain in constant 
communication with Brazil with respect to any matter relating thereto .  
1.29.   The representative  of Brazil  said that her country  wished to thank  Indonesia for its status 
report, which Brazil was currently reviewing . Brazil 's concerns about Indonesia 's implementation of 
the DSB 's recommendations and rulings in th is dispute  remained . 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 Article 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 
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 July 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 aspect of this dispute .  
1.30.   The DSB took note of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its ne xt 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.5)  
1.31.   The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS488/12/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 anti -dumping measures on certain oil country tubular goods from Korea . 
1.32.   The representative of the United States  said that o n 11 Jan uary 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 (RPT) for implementation of the DSB 's recommendations and 
rulings in this dispute pursuant to Artic le 21.3(b) of the DSU. The RPT would expire on 12 July 2019 . 
The United States had provided a status report in this dispute on 14 February  2019, in accordance 
with Article 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 conformity 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 .  
1.33.   The representative of  Korea  said that his country wished to  thank the United States for its 
status reports and the statement  made  at the present meeting . Korea wished to  refer to its 
statements made at previous DSB meetings and urge d the United States to faithfully implement the WT/DSB/M/426  
 
- 8 - 
 
  DSB's  recommendations and rulings within the reasonable period of time, which would  expire  on 
12 July 2019 . 
1.34.   The DSB took note of the statements and agreed  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/Add.1 – WT/DS478/22/Add.1)  
1.35.   The Chairperson  drew attention to document WT/DS477/21/Add.1 – WT/DS478/22/ Add.1, 
which contain ed the status report by In donesia on progress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case concerning importation of horticultural products, animals and animal 
products . 
1.36.   The representative of Indonesia  said that her delegation had submit ted its status  report in 
accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. On 22  November 2017, the DSB had adopted the 
recommendations and rulings 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 this 
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 had 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 had mutually agreed that Indonesia would have 
more time to make statu tory changes to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this 
dispute . Accordingly, the United States and New Zealand would not initiate further proceedings 
concerning Measure 18 until at least 22 June 2019 . From the 28 January 2019  DSB meeting , 
Indonesia had noted that the United States and New Zealand had underscored some measures 
including requirements on harvest period, import realization, warehouse capacity, application 
windows, validity period and fixed licensed terms. Indonesia had conduc ted intensive  bilateral 
consultations with the United States and New Zealand to discuss implementation progress in order 
to pursue full  compliance. In general, Indonesia ha d been improving its system of importation to 
address concerns rais ed by the United States and New  Zealand. Indonesia w ould continue to hold 
such consultations  with the United States and New  Zealand to provide further detailed explanation s 
on these matters.  
1.37.   The representative of the United States  said that, regrettably, Indonesia continue d to fail to 
bring its measures into compliance. The United States and New Zealand agree d that significant 
concerns remain ed with the measures at issue including: harvest period restrictions, import 
realization, warehouse capacity, application wind ows, validity period, and fixed licensed terms . The 
United  States remain ed willing to work with Indonesia to fully and meaningfully resolve this dispute. 
Although Indonesia and the United States ha d engaged in bilateral discussions, the United States 
was still waiting to hear from Indonesia what concrete actions it w ould take to bring its measures 
into full compliance. The United States also look ed forward to hearing the statutory changes 
Indonesia intend ed to make with respect to Measure 18.  
1.38.   The represent ative of New Z ealand  said that his country  acknowledge d the steps that had 
been taken by Indonesia to bring its regulations into compliance with the DSB's recommendations 
and rulings.  His country also  welcome d Indonesia 's commitment to comply fully with th ese 
recommendations and rulings . New Zealand did not consider, however, that full compliance ha d 
been reached in respect of a number of measures addressed in th is dispute . Of particular concern 
was the continued enforcement by Indonesia of limited application windows, harvest period import 
bans, import reali zation requirements, and restrictions placed on import volumes based on storage 
capacity. New Zealand wished to thank  Indonesia for its continu ed engagement , including for its  
most recent status report. New Zealand  welcome d Indonesia 's commitment in this status report to 
engage intensively with New Zealand and the United States, and also wished  to use these discussions 
to learn more about progres s on the further legislative change that was due to come into effect by 
the June 2019 deadline . New Zealand would continue  to work with Indonesia to achieve long -term, 
commercially meaningful compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this di spute .  
1.39.   The DSB took note of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting.  WT/DSB/M/426  
 
- 9 - 
 
  2  UNITED  STATES – CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT OF  2000: 
IMPLEMENTATION OF TH E RECOMMENDATIONS AD OPTED BY THE  DSB 
A.  Statement  by the European  Union  
2.1.  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 . 
2.2.  The representative  of the European Union  said that  his delegation request ed, once again , that 
the United States stop transferring anti -dumping and countervailing duties to the US 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 status  reports in this dispute . The EU 
would continue to p lace this item on the Agenda as lo ng as the U nited States had not implemented 
the DSB 's recommendations and rulings  in this dispute .  
2.3.  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 Ag enda of the DSB . Beyond the discussion 
about whether  or not the concerned Member had an  obligation to continue submitting status reports  
in this dispute , the reason that Members had  to return to this Agenda item at  every DSB meeting 
was that millions of dollars in anti-dumping and countervailing duties were still being illegally  
disbursed to US domestic petitioners. After more than 16 years since the adoption of the DSB's 
recommendations  and rulings in this dispute , and after more than 13 years after the date on which  
the Deficit Reduction Act that had repealed the Amendment, Brazil call ed on the United States to 
comply fully with the DSB 's recommendations and rulings in this dispute.  
2.4.  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 surveillance of the DSB until the United States ceased to apply the 
measures at issue in this d ispute . 
2.5.  The representative  of the United States  said that a s the United States ha d noted at previous 
DSB meetings, 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 
rulings in these disputes.  The United States  recall ed, furthermore, that the EU ha d acknowledged 
that the Deficit Reduction Act  did not permit the distribution of duties collected on goods 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 status 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 confirmed this widespread understanding of 
Article 21.6 of the DSU. Responding party Members did not continue submitting status reports where 
the responding Member had claimed compliance and the complaining Membe r disagree d, as 
Members would  see under the next Agenda item concerning the "E C – Large Civil Aircraft" dispute  
(DS316) . As the EU was aware, the United States ha d announced in this  dispute that it had 
implemented the DSB's recommendations and rulings. If the EU disagreed, there would simply 
appear to be a disagreement between the parties to the dispute about the situation of compliance .  
2.6.  The DSB took note of the statements.  
3  EUROPEAN  COMMUNITIES AND CER TAIN MEMBER STATES – MEASURES AFFECTING 
TRADE IN LARGE CIVIL AIRCRAFT: IMPL EMENTATION OF THE RE COMMENDATIONS 
ADOPTED BY THE DSB  
A.  Statement  by the United  States  
3.1.  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 . WT/DSB/M/426  
 
- 10 - 
 
  3.2.  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 Article 21.6 of the DSU requir ed that : "the issue of 
implementation shall remain on the DSB's agenda until the issue is resolved" . And the EU had argued 
that where the EU as a complaining party did not agree with another responding party 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 
last DSB meeting on 28 January 2019 that: " compliance proceedings in this dispute are still ongoing 
and whether or not 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 th e present meeting, 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 fail ed 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 need not 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 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 
"progress" on which it could report, and therefore no obligation to provide a report . And the conduct 
of every Member when acting as a responding party, including the EU, showed that WTO Members 
understood that a Member concerned had no obligation under Artic le 21.6 of the DSU to continue 
supplying status reports 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 .  
3.3.  The representative of  the European Union  said that t he United States  had implied that his 
delegation  was taking inconsistent positions under Article 21.6 of the DSU, depending on whether 
the EU was a complaining party or a defending party in a dispute . This US assertion was without 
merit. As the EU ha d repeatedly explained at previous DSB  meetings, the crucial point for the 
respon ding party 's obligation to provide status reports to the DSB was the stage of the dispute . In 
the "EC – Large Civil Aircraft" dispute (DS316) , the dispute was at a stage where the respon ding 
party d id not have the obligation to submit status reports to the DSB. The EU wished to  recall  that 
in the "EC – Large Civil Aircraft" dispute (DS316) , 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 . The U nited 
States had responded that the measures included in that communication d id not bring the EU in full 
compliance with the DSB 's recommendations and rulings  in that dispute . In light of the US position, 
on 29  May 2018, the EU had requested consultations with the United States pursuant to  
Articles  4 and 21.5 of the DSU . These consultations had failed to resolve the dispute. Consequently, 
the EU had then asked for the establishment of a compliance panel. The compliance panel had been  
established by the DSB on 27 August 2018. That compliance panel was currently reviewing "the 
existence or consistency with a covered agreement of measures taken to comply with the 
recom mendations and rulings " of the DSB. He repeat ed that  there was a compliance proceeding still 
ongoing in this dispute. Whether or not the matter was "resolved " in the sense of Article 21.6 of 
the DSU wa s the very subject matter of this ongoing litigation. H e asked how it could be said 
that the respo nding party should submit "status reports " to the DSB in these circumstances . In the 
"US — Offset Act (Byrd Amendment)" dispute s (DS217 , DS234 ), referred to  as the "Byrd 
Amendment " dispute , the situation was completely different. The se dispute s had been adjudicated 
and there were no further proceedings pending. Under Article 21.6 DSU, the issue of implementation 
had to  remain on the DSB's Agenda until the issue was resolved. In the "US — Offset Act (Byrd 
Amend ment)" dispute s (DS217 , DS234 ), the EU d id not agree with the US assertion that it ha d 
implemented the DSB 's recommendations and rulings. This mean t that the issue remain ed 
unresolved for purposes of Article 21.6 of the DSU. If the U nited States did not ag ree that the issue 
remain ed unresolved, nothing prevent ed the United States from seeking a multilateral determination 
through a compliance procedure, just like the EU was doing in the "EC – Large Civil Aircraft" dispute 
(DS316) . In conclusion, the EU would be very concerned with a reading of Article 21.6 of the DSU 
that would require the respo nding party to notify the purported "status of its implementation efforts " 
through the submission of status reports to the DSB, while disp ute settlement proceedings on that WT/DSB/M/426  
 
- 11 - 
 
  precise issue were ongoing. The view of the EU was further supported by Article 2 of the DSU on the 
administration of the dispute settlement rules and procedures: where, further to the disagreement 
between the parties on compliance, a matter was with the adjudicators, it was temporarily taken 
out of the DSB 's surveillance.  
3.4.  The DSB took note of the statements.  
4  TURKEY  – ADDITIONAL DUTIES  ON IMPORTS OF AIR C ONDITIONING MACHINES  FROM 
THAILAND  
A.  Request  for the establishment of a panel by Thailand  (WT/DS 573/2)  
4.1.  The Chairperson  drew attention to the communication from Thailand contained in document 
WT/DS573/2 . She then  invited the representative of Thailand to speak . 
4.2.  The representative  of Thailand  said that o n 4 December 2018, his country  had requested 
consultations with Turkey regarding th is dispute . Thailand ha d engaged in good faith consultations 
with Turkey with a view to reaching a mutually satisfactory solution. Unfortunately, these 
consultations  had not been  fruitful and had failed  to resolve th is dispute . His country , therefore , felt 
obliged , at the present meeting,  to request the establishment of a panel to resolve this dispute. For 
the reasons indicated in its request for establishment of a panel, dated 14 February 2019, Thailand 
was concerned that the additional duties imposed by Turkey on air conditioning machines from 
Thailand were inconsistent with Turkey 's obligations under the GATT 1994  and the Agreement on 
Safeguards. In particular, Thailand note d that the additional duties had been  imposed by Turkey in 
response to the June 2017 extension for a period of three years of Thailand 's safeguard measure on 
certain steel products. However, sin ce Turkey was not an affected Member with a substantial interest 
as an exporter of the products covered by the safeguard measure, it was not entitled to suspend an 
equivalent level of concessions in response to the safeguard measure. Furthermore, even assu ming 
that Turkey had the right to suspend concessions, the level of the additional duties imposed by 
Turkey and the duration of its measure were not in line with its obligation to suspend only 
"substantially equivalent " concessions or other obligations. Thailand was, therefore , concerned that 
Turkey ha d imposed additional duties that were not justified under  Article XIX of the GATT 1994 and 
the Agreement on Safeguards. Turkey 's additional duties violate d its tariff commitments and related 
obligations with r espect to imports from Thailand.  Accordingly, Thailand request ed that the DSB 
establish a panel to examine the matter set out in its request for establishment of a panel, with 
standard terms of reference.   
4.3.  The representative  of Turkey  said that his country  regret ted Thailand's decision to request the 
establishment of a panel  in this dispute . Thailand's  request was premature because, in Turkey's 
view, the parties ha d not yet exhausted all possibilities to arrive  at a mutually convenient solution 
for this dis pute. Turkey wishe d to express its sincere hope that a mutually agreeable solution could 
be found to resolv e this dispute. Turkey st ood ready to engage in meaningful and constructive 
discussion s with Thailand on how this could be done. In these circumstanc es, Turkey was unable to 
agree to the establishment of a panel at th e present meeting .  
4.4.  The DSB took note of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter.  
5  APPELLATE BODY APPOI NTMENTS: PROPOSAL BY  ARGENTINA; AUSTRALI A; BENIN; 
THE PLURINATIONAL ST ATE O F BOLIVIA; BRAZIL; C ANADA; 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 B OLIVARIAN REPUBLIC O F 
VENEZUELA AND VIET  NAM (WT/DSB/W/609/REV .8) 
5.1.  The Chairperson  said that t his item was on the Agenda of the present  meeting at the request 
of Mexico, on behalf of several delegations. In this regard, she drew attention to the proposal 
contained in d ocument WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.8 and  invite d the representative of Mexico to speak . WT/DSB/M/426  
 
- 12 - 
 
  5.2.  The representative  of Mexico , speaking on behalf of the co -sponsors of the proposal contained  
in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev. 8, said that the delegations in question  had agreed to submit the 
joint proposal dated 14 February  2019 to launch the AB selection processes . Her delegation  
welcome d Benin as a new co -sponsor of the proposal in addition to  Rwanda who ha d expressed its 
intention to co -sponsor  this proposal . Mexico, on behalf of these 73 Members , wished  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 ov erall 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  in the joint proposal before the DSB at the present meeting . This proposal sought  to: 
(i) start four selection processes: one process to replace Mr. Ricardo Ramírez -Hernández, whose 
second term expired on 30 June 2017; a second process to fill the vacancy 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 of 30  days for the 
submission of candida tes; 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 selection processes,  but believed that Members  
should take into acco unt 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 . 
5.3.  The representative of Mexico , speaking  on behalf of Mexico only,  said that  her country found 
it regrettable that, despite many attempts made by various delegations, the Appellate Body  
continued to have only three of the seven members that it should comprise . In this regard, Mexico 
had grave concerns, which were becoming increasi ngly pressing. Mexico,  once again , called on 
Members to address, in a responsible manner, the current situation whereby , for nearly two years , 
Members had  been unable to launch the AB selection process es. In failing to do this, Members we re 
clearly disrega rding 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 . The Appellate Body ha d recently found itself faced with a growing accumulation of 
pending appeals, and this w ould continue to escalate, as it was only the same three remaining 
members that would consider all appeals submitted since October 2018. There were currently 
proposals b efore the General Council that s ought  to address the concerns that ha d been raised, and 
that alone should be sufficient for th e launch of the AB selection  process es to be a greed to by 
Members at the present meeting  in compliance with the DSU , so that the v acancies c ould be filled 
as quickly as possible. Accordingly, Mexico  strongly urge d all Members, including the one that ha d 
raised concerns, to take part constructively in th e informal process  conducted under the auspices of 
the General Council . Time conti nued to pass and resolving this issue was a matter of increasing 
urgency , therefore,  filling the AB vacancies should  be the primary objective  of Members . The current 
situation was already critical, but in December 2019 the terms of two of the three remaini ng 
members of the Appellate Body w ould expire and the Appellate Body would  not have the minimum 
number of members required to deal with appeals . As Mexico had stated on various occasions, the 
Appellate Body was a key element  of the dispute settlement system, which was why it should be a 
priority for all Members to ensure its proper functioning. To that end, it was essential for the 
Appellate Body  to have its full complement of members.  
5.4.  The representative  of the European Union  said that his delegation  wished to refer to its 
statements made on this matter 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 vacancies as 
required by Article 17.2 of the DSU . The EU thank ed all Members that co -sponsored the proposal 
contained in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev. 8 to launch the AB selection processes . The EU  invite d 
all other Members to endorse this proposal, so that the appointments c ould be made as soon as 
possible . The EU recall ed that concrete proposals had been submitted to the General Council  with a 
view to unblocking the AB selection processes . These proposals constitute d a serious effort to 
address the concerns that ha d been voiced in connection with the  functioning of the Appellate Body. 
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 .  WT/DSB/M/426  
 
- 13 - 
 
  5.5.  The representative  of Ukraine  said that her country wished to recall its statements made at 
previous DSB meetings related to this Agenda item on the AB selection processes . She reiterate d 
her country's  willingness to participate in the discussions and to contribute towards finding solutions 
to the issues  of concern. With each DSB meeting in 2019 where no agreement had been  reached, 
the dispute settlement system would soon be paralyzed  since in December 2019, the term s of two 
of the three remaining Appellate Body members  would expire. Therefore, it was extremely important  
to make every effort which could possibly lead to launch ing of  the AB selection processes. In this 
regard, Ukraine wished to thank all Members who participate d in the discussions  on AB matters  and 
provide d proposals regarding the  moderni zation of the WTO . Ukraine was closely examining these 
proposals and believed that they could help address  this matter.  At this point, many  concerns were 
raised and several proposals  were submitted regarding the WTO reform . Thus, Ukraine suggest ed 
to delink  the matters concerning the functioning of the dispute settlement system from other issues 
related to  the moderni zation of the WTO . With regard  to the functioning of the dispute settlement 
system , Ukraine deem ed it necessary to review  the proposals in order to see wh at were the major 
obstacles that prevent ed Members from finding a common solution and launching the AB selection 
processes. Ukraine believe d that this would increase active engagement of Members , and could  
speed up  the process of finding a solution with regard to  the functioning of the dispute settlement 
system. Ukraine thank ed for the opportunity to express its views  on this matter  and welcome d 
further discussion s in this regard.  
5.6.  The representative  of the United States  said that t he United States wished to thank  the 
Chairperson  for the continued work on these issues. As the United States had explained at prior DSB 
meetings, t he United  States  was not in a position to support the proposed decision  contained in 
document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev. 8. The systemic concerns that the United States had identified 
remained unaddressed . As the United States had explained at recent DSB meetings, for more t han 
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 persistent 
overreaching, the WTO Appellate Body had been adding obligatio ns 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 .1 The United States had raised repeated concerns that appellate reports 
had gone far beyond the text se tting out WTO rules in varied areas, such as subs idies, anti -dumping 
duties , anti-subsidy duties, standards and technical barriers to trade, and safeguards, all 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 necessary 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 
Appellate Body act ed as if it ha d the power to permit ex -Appellate Body mem bers 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 Body 's disregard for the WTO 's 
rules.  US concerns ha d not been address ed. 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 Members 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 imp ortant issues . 
5.7.  The representative of  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. Australia  welcome d the leadership provided by 
Ambassador Walker, as Facilitator of the General Council 's informal process on Appellate Body 
matters . Australia  expect ed that  through the pragmatic and solution -focused work of all Members, 
it would be possible  to find mutually agreeable outcomes and it would  allow Members to fill the 
vacancies on the Appellate Body as soon as possible. Australia  remain ed committed to continuing 
this process after the 28 February 2019 General Council  meeting . There were many mor e points to 
discuss to narrow down the issues and build a package of solutions . Australia  looked forward to 
further discussing the proposals put forward to date and encourage d others with constructive 
                                                
1 Office of the US Trade Representative, 2018 President's Trade Policy Agenda, at 22 -28. WT/DSB/M/426  
 
- 14 - 
 
  contributions to come forward to help steer the debate towards solutions in the interest of all 
Members.  
5.8.  The representative of  New Zealand  said that his delegation wished to reiterate its support for 
the co -sponsored proposal contained in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev. 8 and emphasi zed the 
importance of commencing the AB selection process es as soon as possible. New Zealand welcome d 
discussions on the current impasse through the informal process under the auspices of the General 
Council, with their emphasis on a solution -oriented discussion.  
5.9.  The representative  of India said that her country  wished to reiterate the statements made  by 
India at previous DSB meetings on this matter.  
5.10.   The representative  of Cuba, speaking on behalf of the GRULAC, said that Cuba wished to 
reiterate their  deepest concern  with regard to the  status of the AB selection processes . The GRULAC  
welcome d the informal process on AB matters established under the auspices of the General Council 
to unblocking the ongoing paralysis of the AB selection process es, which demonstrate d the urgency 
of the mat ter. A number of proposals ha d been submitted, which were aimed  at achiev ing this 
objective. Some of th ese proposals  had been submitted by WTO Members from the GRULAC  region.  
Cuba wished  to underline that under Article 17.2 of the DSU, the vacant posts should be filled "as 
they arise". Compliance with this obligation had been violated repeatedly. Members  had heard the 
concerns that ha d been raised with regard to the functioning of the App ellate Body, which  had 
imped ed the initiation of the AB selection process es. However, the process of seeking a solution to 
these concerns should not be an obstacle vis-à-vis the continued functioning of the system. All 
Members  should demonstrate willingnes s to find solution s. Cuba wished to reiterate the willingness 
of GRULAC WTO Members to contribute to finding a definite and urgent solution to this problem, as 
well as supporting the efforts to this end.  
5.11.   The representative  of Brazil  said that his country wished to refer to its statements made at 
previous DSB meetings regarding the urgency of launching the AB selection process es. As Members 
were well aware, if nothing was done, in December 2019, the Appellate Body w ould no longer be 
able to hear new appeals and the dispute settlement system as a whole w ould be compromised. 
Brazil, therefore, believe d that the Members'  main goal should be to trace a clear path to filling the 
AB vacancies. To this end, Members  had to understand what solut ions were possible. Brazil  believe d 
that this c ould be achieved in the context of  the informal process under the General Council. Brazil 
was ready to engage in pragmatic discussions to resolve these issues. Finally, Brazil  urged the 
Membership to meet its obligation of filling the AB vacancies as they ar ose. 
5.12.   The representative  of China  said that his country  wished  to echo the statement made by 
Mexico on behalf of 7 3 Members  under this Agenda item.  China regret ted that the collective efforts 
by these Me mbers 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 arise ". The clear text was more than adequate to suggest the 
Member s' duty to launch the AB selection process es without any precondition attached and to ensure 
the integrity and the well -functioning of the Appellate Body. China note d that Members ha d made 
and were continu ing to make earnest e fforts to address concerns raised by a particular Member. 
Various proposals, including the joint proposals co -sponsored by the EU, China and other Members, 
had been tabled and discussed in informal meetings under the auspices of the General Council. Such 
endeavours ha d already formed a solid basis for future consultations. It was time for the Member 
concerned, the United States, to table its constructive proposals so as to substantiate the 
discussions. The Appellate Body was facing unprecedented challenges.  Members had  to act swiftly 
and constructively. China call ed on all Members to have meaningful and substantive discussion  in 
informal meetings and to strive to solve the current AB selection impasse without further delay.  
5.13.   The representative of  Hong K ong, China  said that his delegation wished  to reiterate its 
disappointment and concern that the impasse in the AB selection process es remain ed unresolved. 
His delegation  appreciate d the work done by various Members to address a Member's concerns with 
the Appell ate Body in the informal process  under the auspices of the General Council. Hong Kong , 
China  was committed to engaging constructively to find a solution as soon as possible. Hong Kong , 
China  urged all Members, in particular those who had raised concerns wi th the system, to do the 
same. Nevertheless, Hong Kong , China  had to  emphasize, once again, that a discussion o n improving 
the Appellate Body should not be a reason to delay the AB appointments. Hong Kong , China  called 
on all Members to agree to start the AB selection process es immediately.  WT/DSB/M/426  
 
- 15 - 
 
  5.14.   The representative of  Switzerland  said that his country wished to refer  to its statements made 
at previous DSB meetings on this matter . Switzerland regret ted that the DSB continue d to be unable 
to launch the AB selectio n processes. Switzerland  noted with satisfaction the discussions that were 
taking place in the context of the informal process under the auspices of the General Council, and 
called on all Members to engage in it constructively, with a view to finding concrete solutions. 
Switzerland look ed forward to continuing and deepening the discussion in that process.  
5.15.   The representative of  Nigeria  said that i n light of the current impasse in the AB selection 
processes , her country wished  to underscore the importan ce of ensuring the effective functioning of 
the dispute settlement system. It was relevant  for Members to cultivate a solution -based approach  
to this matter  while upholding the integrity of the rules -based multilateral system. She urged the 
Chairperson  to continue to facilitate consultations in order to help address the concerns of Members. 
The clock was ticking and Members  faced  the risk of an Appellate Body devoid of members by the 
end of 2019. Nigeria , therefore, call ed on Members to engage in solution -based discussion s with 
each other, aimed at resolving the Appellate Body impasse.  
5.16.   The representative of  Norway  said that her country, once again,  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  dispute settlement system. Norway  deeply 
regret ted that the United States still c ould not join consensus on the proposal to launch the AB 
selection process es. Norway was  hopeful that discussions w ould continue , and progress w ould be 
made , in the informal process established under the auspices of the General Council. Norway  
encourage d all Members to actively seek solutions and engage in those important discussions.  
5.17.   The representative  of Thailand  said that his country wished to refer  to its statements made 
at previous DSB meetings on this matter . Thailand support ed the launching of the AB selection 
processes as soon as possible. The discussions of any systemic concerns wh ich ha d been raised, 
including at the informal process under the auspices of the General Council, c ould be worked o ut 
separately and should not prevent the start of the AB selection processes. Thailand remain ed 
committed to working constructively with all Members to resolve the Appellate Body impasse as a 
priority.  
5.18.   The representative  of Singapore  said that his country wished to refer  to its statements made 
at previous DSB meetings on this matter  and to reiterat e its serious systemic concerns o ver the 
failure to launch the AB selection process es. In less than 10 months  from the present meeting , the 
Appellate Body w ould be down to just one member if vacancies remain ed unfilled. 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 been raised could be discussed in a 
separate process . In this regard, even as Members continue d to engage in the informal pr ocess for 
focused discussions led by the Facilitator  under the auspices of the General Council , Singapore 
wishe d to emphasi ze that the A B selection process es should be allowed to proceed unconditionally. 
Singapore st ood ready to engage constructively and collaboratively to help resolve this impasse.  
5.19.   The representative  of Chinese Taipei  said that his delegation wished to refer to its statements 
made at previous DSB meetings . Chinese Taipei wished  to join other Members in thank ing the Chair 
of the General Council and Ambassador Walker for their efforts in facilitating and organizing the 
informal process of discussion s on this matter. Chinese Taipei  hoped this impasse could be resolved 
as soon as possible.  
5.20.   The representative  of Canada  said that his country  support ed the statement made at the 
present meeting by Mexico . It had been twenty -one 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 excep tions 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 situation 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. 8. Canada 
was pleased that the Chair of the General Council ha d initiated an informal process to discuss the 
various proposals to address US concerns. Canada called on the United States to engage in WT/DSB/M/426  
 
- 16 - 
 
  solution -focused discussions with intere sted Members in this regard. Canada remain ed committed 
to working with other interested Members, including the United States, with a view to address ing 
those concerns and undertake the AB selection process es expeditiously. Canada  invite d the Members 
that had not yet sponsor ed the proposal contained in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev. 8 to give it the 
attention it deserve d, and to support it. Canada  welcome d Benin to the group of proponents to this 
joint proposal as well as Rwanda 's notification of its intention to  co-sponsor the proposal.  
5.21.   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, as one of its 
co-sponsors , support ed the joint proposal contained in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev. 8 which 
intend ed to launch the AB selection process es promptly . At the same time, Korea also support ed the 
discussion in the informal discussions under the auspices of the General Council and look ed forward 
to achieving substantial progress in the near future.  
5.22.   The representative  of Japan  said that his country wished to thank  the co -sponsored  for the 
proposal contained in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev. 8 which it support ed. Japan also support ed the 
informal process under the  auspice s of the General Council , which was well underway. Japan hope d 
that, through WTO Members ' active engagement in this process, Members c ould make good progress 
in a timely manner and the DSB w ould soon be in a position to fill the vacancies in the Ap pellate 
Body.   
5.23.   The representative  of Afghanistan  said that his country  believed  that a well-functioning  
dispute settlement system  was an imperative for the multilateral trading system and  the WTO to 
ensure a full and fair enforceme nt of rules and obligations by M embers. Afghanistan reiterate d the 
importance o f these aims and the importance of promoting a rules-based, open, transparent and 
inclusive international trad ing system. Afghanistan welcome d and support ed any initiative and effort 
to address  the impasse in the AB selection processes  and ask ed that the discussions to amend the 
rules and procedures governing the dispute settlement system be conducted  in a manner acceptable 
to all Members. Afghanistan appreciate d the efforts to find solutions fo r the impasse in AB vacanc ies 
as facilitated by Ambassador  Walker and call ed all Members to positively contribute in these 
discussion s to take this matter forward without delay.  
5.24.   The representative  of Mexico  said that h er delegation, speaking on behalf of the 7 3 
co-sponsors of th e proposal  contained in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev. 8, wished  to express its  
regret that for the twent y-first 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 Members 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 the work of this body . There 
was no legal justification for the current blocking of the AB selection process es, which resulted in 
nullification and i mpairment for many Members . As Article 17.2 of the DSU clearly state d: 
"[v]acancies shall be filled 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 .  
5.25.    The representative  of the United States  said that the United States  noted that se veral 
Members, including Mexico, the EU, Canada, and China, ha d referenced the "shall" in the third 
sentence of Article 17.2 of the DSU. The United States would  ask these Members to share their views 
on the "shall" in the first sentence of that A rticle. That sentence read, in part, that : "[t]he DSB shall 
appoint persons to serve on the Appellate Body ". The United States  asked whether  these Members 
agree d that this provision ma de clear that it was the DSB that ha d the authority to appoint and 
reappoint mem bers of the Appellate Body . And that the DSB – not the Appellate Body – had the 
responsibility to decide whether a person whose term of appointment ha d expired should continue 
serving, as if a member of the Appellate Body, on any pending appeals . The Unite d States  asked 
whether  these Members could share their views on the "shall" in Article 17.5 of the DSU . As the text 
of Article 17.5 of the DSU provide d that: "[i]n no case shall the proceedings exceed 90 days ", the 
United States  asked whether  these Members  agree d that the Appellate Body breache d this provision 
when it issue d a report beyond the 90 -day deadline . The United States  asked what these Members' 
views were  on the "shall" in Article 17.6 of the DSU. A rticle 17.6 provide d that: "[a]n appeal shall 
be limited to issues of law covered in the panel report and legal interpretations developed by the 
panel ". The United States  asked whether  these Members agree d that the Appellate Body d id not 
respect this text when it engage d in review of panel findings of fact . The United States  looked forward 
to hearing these Members ' views on these questions. The United States  also note d that at least one WT/DSB/M/426  
 
- 17 - 
 
  Member ha d said that the United States should table its own proposal. The United State s had made 
its views on these issues very clear:  if WTO Members sa id that Members  support ed a rules -based 
trading system, then the WTO Appellate Body  had to  follow the rules Members had  agreed to in 
1995. And thus, for instance, the Appellate Body had to  circulate its reports within 90 days of an 
appeal.2 A person who ha d ceased to be an Appellate Body member could  not continue deciding 
appeals  as if their term had been extended by the D SB.3 The Appellate Body could  not make findings 
on issues of fact, incl uding but not limited to those relating to domestic law.4 The Appellate Body 
could  not give advisory opinions on issues that w ould not assist the DSB in making a 
recommendation to bring a WTO -inconsistent measure into compliance with WTO rules.5 The 
Appell ate Body could  not assert that its reports serve d as precedent or provide d authoritative 
interpretations.6 And the Appellate Body could  not change Members ' substantive rights or obligations 
as set out in the text of the WTO agreements.7 Rather than seeking to make revisions to the text of 
the DSU to permit what was currently  prohibited, the United States believe d it was necessary for 
Members to engage in a deeper discussion of the concerns raised, to consider why the Appellate 
Body ha d felt free to depart from what WTO Members had agreed to, and to discuss how best  to 
ensure that the system adhere d to WTO rules as written.  
5.26.   The Chairperson  thank ed all delegations for their statements. She said that a s in the past, 
the DSB w ould take note o f the statements expressing the respective positions, which w ould be duly 
reflected in the minutes of this meeting. As Members we re aware, this matter require d a political 
engagement on the part of all WTO Members . In this regard, she recall ed that, under the auspices 
of the General Council, Ambassador David Walker of New  Zealand had agreed to assist the Chair of 
the General Council, as Facilitator, in an informal process of focused discussions on Appellate Body 
matters. The first informal open -ended meetin g chaired by Amb assador  Walker had been  held on 
17 January 2019. Subsequently, she said that Ambassador Walker had held informal consultations 
with a small group of delegations and his report on the results of his consultations had been  
presented at the second open -ended informal meeting held on 18  February  2019. He would  also 
provide a report on his consultations to the General Council at its 28 February  2019 meeting.  
5.27.   The DSB took note  of the statements.  
__________  
                                                
2 Article 17.5 of the DSU.  Statement by the United States Concerning Article 17.5 of the "Understanding 
on Rules and  Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes ", 22 June 2018 DSB Meeting, available at: 
https://geneva.usmission.gov/wp -content/uploads/sites/290/Jun22.DSB_.Stmt_.as -
delivered.fin_.public.rev_.pdf.  
3 Articles 17.1 and 17.2 of the DSU.  US Statement at th e 31 August 2017 DSB Meeting, available at: 
https://geneva.usmission.gov/wp -content/uploads/sites/290/Aug31.DSB_.Stmt_.as -delivered.fin_.public.pdf 
and US Statement at the 28 February  2018 DSB Meeting, available at: https://geneva.usmission.gov/wp -
content/ uploads/sites/290/Feb28.DSB_.Stmt_.as -delivered.fin_.public -1.pdf.  
4 Article 17.6  of the DSU . Statement by the United States Concerning Article 17.6 of the "Understanding 
on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes " and Appellate Review of  Panel Findings of Fact, 
Including Domestic Law, 27 August 2018  DSB Meeting, available at: https://geneva.usmission.gov/wp -
content/uploads/sites/290/Aug27.DSB_.Stmt_.as -delivered.fin_.rev_.public.pdf.  
5 Articles 7.1, 11 and 17.6 of the DSU.  Statement by the United States Concerning the Issuance of 
Advisory Opinions on Issues Not Necessary to Resolve a Dispute, 29 October 2018  DSB Meeting, available at: 
https://geneva.usmission.gov/wp -content/uploads/sites/290/Oct29.DSB_.Stmt_.as -
delivered.fi n_.rev_.public.pdf.  
6 Article 3.9  of the DSU , Article IX:2  of the WTO Agreement.  
7 Articles 3.2  and 19.2 of the DSU .