RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DSB/M/430  
 
2 August 2019  
(19-5055) Page: 1/19 
Dispute Settlement Body  
24 June 2019  
   
 
MINUTES OF MEETING  
HELD IN THE CENTRE W ILLIAM RAPPARD  
ON 24 JUNE  2019 
Chairman: H.E. Dr David Walker (New Zealand)  
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  ................................ ................................ ..............  6 
E. United  States – Certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping proceedings 
involving China: Status report by the United States  ................................ ................................ . 7 
F. Indonesia – Measures concerning the importation of chicken meat and chicken products: Status 
report by Indonesia  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  8 
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  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  9 
2   CHINA – TARIFF R ATE QUOTAS FOR CERTA IN AGRICULTURAL PROD UCTS  .................  9 
A. Implementation of the recommendations of the DSB  ................................ ...........................  9 
3   UNITED STATES – CONTINUED DUMPING AN D SUBSID Y 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 LARGE CIVIL  AIRCRAFT: IMPLEMENT ATION OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS 
ADOPTED BY THE DSB  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 11 
A. Statement by the  United States  ................................ ................................ ....................... 11 
5   UNITED STATES – ANTI -DUMPING AND COU NTERVAILING DUTIES O N RIPE OLIVES 
FROM SPAIN  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  12 
A. Request for the establishment of a panel by the European  Union ................................ .......... 12 WT/DSB/M/430  
 
- 2 - 
 
  6   INDONESIA – MEAS URES CONCERNING THE IMPORTATION OF CHICK EN MEAT AND 
CHICKEN PRODUCTS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 13 
A. Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Brazil: Request for the establishment of a panel  ......... 13 
7   PROPOSED NOMINAT IONS FOR THE INDICAT IVE LIST OF GOVERNME NTAL AND NON -
GOVERNMENTAL PANELIS TS ................................ ................................ ..........................  14 
8   APPELLATE BODY A PPOINTMENTS: PROPOSA L BY ARGENTINA; AUST RALIA; BENIN; 
THE PLURINATIONAL ST ATE OF BOLIVIA; BRAZ IL; CANADA; CENTRAL AFRICAN 
REPUBLIC; CHILE; CHI NA; COLOMBIA; COSTA  RICA; CUBA; DOMINICA N REPUBLIC; 
ECUADOR; EGYPT; EL  SALVADOR; THE EUROP EAN UNION; GUATEMALA ; HONDURAS; 
HONG  KONG, CHINA; IC ELAND; INDIA; INDONE SIA; ISRAEL; KAZAKHS TAN; KOREA; 
LIECHTENSTEIN; MEXIC O; MOROCCO; NEW  ZEAL AND; NICARAGUA; NORT H MACEDONIA; 
NORWAY; PAKISTAN; PA NAMA; PARAGUAY; PERU ; THE RUSSIAN  FEDER ATION; 
RWANDA; SINGAPORE; S WITZERLAND; THE SEPA RATE CUSTOMS TERRITO RY OF 
TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINM EN AND MATSU; TURKEY ; UKRAINE; URUGUAY; THE 
BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA AND VIE T NAM  ................................ .................  14 
 
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.196)  
B. United  States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act : Status report by the United  States 
(WT/DS160/24/A dd.171)  
C. European  Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products: 
Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/A dd.134)  
D. United  States – Anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential washers from 
Korea: Status report by the United States (WT/DS464/17/A dd.18)  
E. United  States – Certain methodologies and their application to anti-dumping proceedings 
involving China : Status report by the United States (WT/DS471/17/A dd.10)  
F. Indonesia – Measures concerning the importation of chicken meat and chicken products: Status 
report by Indonesia (WT/DS484/18/A dd.9)  
G. United  States – Anti-dumping measures on certain oil country tubular goods from Korea: Status 
report by the United States (WT/DS488/12/A dd.9)  
H. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products: Status report by 
Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/A dd.5 – WT/DS478/22/A dd.5)  
1.1.  The Chairman  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. He recalled that Article  21.6 
requires that: "[u]nless the DSB decides oth erwise, 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 issu e is resolved". Under this Agenda item, he invited delegations to provide up -
to-date information about their compliance efforts. He also reminded delegations that, as provided 
for in Rule  27 of the Rules of Procedure for DSB meetings: "[r]epresentatives sh ould make every 
effort to avoid the repetition of a full debate at each meeting on any issue that has already been 
fully debated in the past and on which there appears to have been no change in Members' positions 
already on record". He then turned to the f irst status report under this Agenda item . WT/DSB/M/430  
 
- 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.196)  
1.2.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS184/15/Add.196, which contained the status 
report by the United  States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in the 
case concerning US  anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from Japan . 
1.3.  The representative of the United  States  said that t he United States had provided a status report 
in this dispute on 13 June 2019, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. The United States ha d 
addressed the DSB 's recommendations and rulings with respect to the calculation of anti -dumping 
margins in the hot -rolled steel anti -dumping duty investigation at issue. With respect to the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB that ha d yet to be addressed, the US Administration w ould 
work with  the US Congress with respect to appropriate statutory measures that would resolve this 
matter.  
1.4.  The representative of Japan  said that his country thank ed the United States for its most recent  
status report and its statement made at the present meeting . Japan , once again , called on the United 
States to fully implement the DSB 's recommendations and rulings in this dispute 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 
meeti ng. 
B. United  States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by the 
United  States (WT/DS160/24/Add.171)  
1.6.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS160/24/Add.171, which contained the status 
report by the United  States on progress in the i mplementation of the DSB's recommendations in the 
case concerning Section  110(5) of the US Copyright Act . 
1.7.  The representative of the United States  said that t he United States had provided a status report 
in this dispute on 13 June 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 satisfactor y 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 . The EU wished  to resolve this disput e as soon as 
possible.  
1.9.  The representative of China  said that his country  noted that the United States ha d submitted 
its 172nd status report in this dispute. Regrettably, these reports were not different from previous 
reports.  Nearly  two decades after the DSB had adopted the Panel Report in this dispute , the matter  
remain ed unresolved. Section 110(5) of the US  Copyright Act, which had been  found  inconsistent 
with the requirements of the Berne Convention and the TRIPS Agreement, was still in effect . Without 
implementation, the United States ha d continuously fail ed to accord the minimum standard of 
protection as required by the TRIPS Agreement and had become the only WTO Member who fail ed 
to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings under the 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 eff ective resolution of disputes to the benefit of all Members ". China,  therefore , 
urged the United States to faithfully hono ur its commitments under the DSU and the TRIPS 
Agreement by implementing the DSB 's recommendations and rulings in this dispute without further 
delay.  WT/DSB/M/430  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.10.   The representative of the United States  said that as the United States had noted at prior DSB 
meetings, by intervening under this Agenda item,  China attempted to give the appearance of co ncern 
for intellectual property rights . Yet, China ha d been engaging in industrial policy which ha d 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 territory equal ed or surpass ed that of any other Member. Indeed, 
none of the damaging technology transfer practices of China that had been discussed at recent DSB 
meeting s were practices that Chinese companies or innovators face d in the United States.  
1.11.   The representative of China  said that, once again, the United States had tried to derail the 
discussions  under this Agenda item by accusing his country  in relation to its  intellectual property 
protection. The issue under this Agenda item wa s clear and simple : the question was whether the 
United States fully implement ed the DSB 's recommendations and rulings in this dispute . Obviously, 
the answer was negat ive. The United States also indicate d that its intellectual property protection 
"equals or surpasses " that of any other WTO Member. However, that assertion directly contradict ed 
the mere fact that the United  States ha d deliberately delayed compliance for decades, and that it 
had become the only WTO Member who fail ed to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings 
under the TRIPS Agreement. This set a bad example of non -compliance for all other  WTO Members . 
With respe ct to vague accusations against China 's intellectual property protection, China wished to  
to refer to its previous statements made  on many occasions, including at the 28 May 2018 DSB 
Meeting. China t ook its TRIPS commitments seriously and always st ood ready to engage in good 
faith discussions with other WTO Members. The allegations regarding  China's intellectual property 
protection c ame from a Section  301 Report issued by the USTR in 2018. However, as one US 
economist ha d noted, in its notorious Section  301, the US Government had acted simultaneously  as 
police, prosecutor, jury and judge. This "aggressive unilateralism " had been opposed strongly by all 
other WTO Members. The findings of the US Section  301 investigation were a wilful distortion of 
facts and the report was full of selective assertions and allegations. Even the USTR actually admit ted 
in the Section  301 report t hat there was no hard evidence to confirm the alleg ed implicit practices. 
In fact, the USTR relie d mainly on dubious proxy surveys and the charges were based on flimsy 
evidence that would never be admissible anywhere in the world.  
1.12.   With regard to  this Agenda item, the United States ' long overdue implementation ha d been 
severely damaging the effectiveness and credibility of the dispute settlement system. This  should 
be of grave concern to the whole Membership. China  urged the United  States to faithfully hono ur its 
implementation duty without further delay. In addition, China  invite d the United States to consider 
including in its next status report the specific reasons why implementation c ould not take place for 
such a long time in this dispute . 
1.13.   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.134)  
1.14.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS291/37/Add.134, which contained the 
status report by the European  Union on progress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case concerning measures affecting the approval  and marketing of biotech 
products . 
1.15.   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 finalized its scientific opinion and 
concluded that there were no safety concerns. In general, the efforts to reduce delays in all stages 
of the authori zation procedures were constantly maintained at a high level. This ha d already resulted 
in a clear improvement of the situation. It should be noted that delays in risk  assessment on some 
applications were mainly due to the time that the applicants need ed in order to respond to justified 
scientific questions. He recall ed that on 5 June 2019, three draft authori zations – one for new GM 
maize1 and two for renewing the authori zation of a GM soybean2 and a GM cotton3 – had been  
presented for a vote in an Appeal Committee , with a "no opinion " result. It was now for the European 
                                                
1 Maize MZHG0JG.  
2 Renewal of soybean MON 89788 . 
3 Renewal of LLCotton25 . WT/DSB/M/430  
 
- 5 - 
 
  Commission to decide on these authori zations. In addition, on 11 June 2019, two draft authori zations 
– one for renewing the authori zation of a GM soybean4 and one of a GM oilseed rape5 – had been  
presented for a vote in a Member States Committee , with a "no opinion " result. These measures 
would then be submitted for a vote i n the Appeal Committee in July  2019. The EU was committed 
to acting in line with its WTO obligations. More generally, and as his delegation had stated many 
times at previous DSB meetings , the EU approval system was not covered by the DSB 's 
recommendations and rulings  in this dispute . 
1.16.   The representative of the United States  said that t he United States thank ed the European 
Union (EU) for its status report and its statement made at the present meeting . The United States 
also thank ed the EU for its participation in their biannual consultations on 12 June  2019. The 
consultations had been  productive and the United States  looked forward to continued engagement. 
Nonetheless, the United States remain ed concerned with the EU 's approval of bi otech products. 
While the United States  welcome d the improvements in some areas, the United States  continue d to 
see on -going and persistent delays that affect ed dozens of applications that ha d been awaiting 
approval for months or years, or that ha d already  received approval. The United States ha d further 
concerns that these extensive delays w ould become even worse as the EU prepare d for political 
changes at the Commission in 2019 . As the United States  had highlighted at prior DSB meetings, 
even when the EU finally approve d a biotech product, EU member States continue d to impose bans 
on the supposedly approved product. The amendment of EU Directive 2001/18 , through EU Directive 
2015/413, permit ted EU member States to, in effect, restrict or prohibit cultivati on of genetically -
modified organisms (GMOs), even where the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) ha d concluded 
that the product was safe. This legislation permit ted EU member States to restrict for non -scientific 
reasons certain uses of EU -authorized biotech 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 seventeen EU member States, as well as certain regions within EU member 
States, ha d submitted such requests with respect to MON -810 maize. This fact c ould not be squared 
with the EU 's representation at previous DSB meetings that no member State h ad taken action to 
ban the cultivation of such a product. The EU ha d not shown how the withholding of products for 
cultivation d id not amount to a ban on those products. The United States  again emphasize d the 
public statement issued by the EU 's Group of Ch ief 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 qualif ied for the exemption contained in EU Directive 2001/18. The Directive had 
been a centra l issue in dispute in these WTO proceedings, and concern ed the deliberate release into 
the environment of GMOs. Contrary to the EU 's statement at prior DSB meetings, this ECJ ruling 
relate d to previously authorized GMOs. The EU Group of Chief Scientific Advisors ' statement sp oke 
to the lack of scientific support for the regulatory framework under EU Directive 2001/18 . The EU 
had repeatedly maintained at previous DSB meetings that these scientific advisors were just another 
group of stakeholders . The statement d id not reflect a mere reaction from a group of stakeholders. 
Rather, the statement reflect ed scientific advice provided to the E uropean  Commission in response 
to its request for such information. The Chief Scientific Advisors ' message prov ided in the statement 
was clear:  "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 ". The statement 
further advise 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 EU 
needed to take this guidance into account in its reconsideration of the GMO  Directive, in light of the 
evident advancements in scientific knowledge and technology. The United States urge d 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 ens ure 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.  
1.17.   The representative of the European U nion said that his delegation wished  to remind the DSB 
that the opt -out Directive was not covered by the DSB 's recommendations and rulings  in this dispute . 
The WTO Agreements d id not require full international harmoni zation and le ft some regulatory space 
or autonomy to individual WTO Members. The European Union ha d different regulatory approaches 
to non -GMOs and GMOs but, in all cases, such regulations d id not discriminate between imported 
and domestic like products. No EU member State ha d imposed any "ban". Under the terms of the 
Directive, an EU member State c ould adopt measures restricting or prohibiting cultivation only when 
                                                
4 Renewal of soybean A2704 -12. 
5 Renewal of oilseed rape T45 . WT/DSB/M/430  
 
- 6 - 
 
  such measures were in line with EU law and were reasoned, proportional, non -discriminatory and 
based on compellin g grounds. The free movement of seeds was embedded in Article 22 of Directive 
2001/18/EC: member States could  not prohibit, restrict or impede the placing on the market of 
GMOs which compl ied with the requirements of this Directive. His delegation also not ed that 
according to the provisions of the opt -out Directive (Article 26b, point 8) , the measures adopted 
under the Directive "shall not affect the free circulation of authorised GMOs " in the EU. Currently , 
the EU Common Catalogue of varieties of agricultu ral species include d 150 varieties of maize MON 
810, which were allowed to be marketed in the EU. Until now, the European Commission ha d never 
received any complaints from seed operators or other stakeholders concerning restriction s on the 
marketing of MON 810 seeds in the EU. This confirm ed the smooth functioning of the internal market 
of MON810 seeds. The EU  invite d the U nited States to provide any evidence they m ight have at their 
disposal that would substantiat e the alleged disruption of the free movemen t of MON810 seeds in 
the EU. In relation to the statement of the Group of Chief Scientific Advisors, the EU w ished  to recall 
that the Group of Chief Scientific Advisors was an independent group of scientific experts providing 
scientific advice to the European Commission. First, the EU w ished  to reiterate that this statement 
focuse d on the future challenges for products obtained by new mutagenesis techniques, and not on 
the "conventional GMOs ". The statement d id not state or imply that Directive 2001/18 /EC was not 
fit for purpose as regards "conventional GMOs ". Second, there ha d been many reactions to the 
judgement of the Court of Justice of the European Union, bringing forward a wide range of different 
views. The statement to which the United States had referred fed into on -going discussions on new 
mutagenesis techniques with all stakeholders. Some stakeholders agree d with that statement. 
However, many others consider ed that the current legislation was adequate to address the risks 
from new biotechnology  developments. The European Commission ha d a strong interest in this 
debate, which should go beyond the regulatory status of new technologies and focus on the way 
new products could help address societal challenges, such as climate change or reduction of u se of 
pesticides, without negative consequences on health and environment al protection.  
1.18.   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 larg e residential 
washers from Korea: Status report by the United States (WT/DS464/17/Add.18)  
1.19.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS464/17/Add.18, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in the 
case concerning anti -dumping and countervailing measures on large residential washers from Korea . 
1.20.   The representative of the United  States  said that t he United States  had provided a status 
report in this dispute on 13 June 2019 , in ac cordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. On 6 May 2019, 
the US Department of Commerce had published a notice in the US Federal Register announcing the 
revocation of the anti-dumping  and countervailing duty orders on imports of large residential 
washers from Korea (84 Fed. Reg. 19,763 (6 May 2019)). With this action, the United States ha d 
completed implementation of the DSB 's recommendations concerning those anti-dumping  and 
counterva iling duty orders. The United States continue d to consult with interested parties on options 
to address the DSB's recommendations relating to other measures challenged in this dispute.  
1.21.   The representative of  Korea  said that his country  thank ed the United States for its status 
report. Korea welcome d the revocation of the orders which had been  part of the measures at issue 
in this dispute. Korea was currently evaluating if the revocation, in its effect, w ould achieve full 
compliance with the DSB' s recommendations and rulings in terms of the "as applied " measures at 
issue in this dispute . At the same time, Korea again urge d the United States to take prompt and 
appropriate steps to implement the DSB 's recommendations for the "as such " measure in this 
dispute.  
1.22.   The representative of Canada  said that t he United States continue d to fail to comply with the 
DSB's ruling, arising out of the Appellate Body Report  in this dispute , that the "differential pricing 
methodology " was "as such " WTO-inconsistent. The United States  had also ignored the DSB 's 
recommendation that it bring itself into compliance with its obligations. Instead, the U nited States 
continue d to apply the "as such " inconsistent differential pricing methodology in investiga tions with 
respect to foreign companies and continue d to collect cash deposits from foreign exporters based 
on its inconsistent methodology. As a result, Canada had been  forced to challenge the differential 
pricing methodology measure in the "US – Differen tial Pricing Methodology " dispute (DS534) and WT/DSB/M/430  
 
- 7 - 
 
  Viet Nam was currently doing the same in  the "US – Fish Fillets " dispute (DS536) . Before these 
Panels, the U nited States had simply re -litigated the dispute concerning the WTO -consistency of the 
differential pr icing methodology and ha d asked the Panels to ignore the Appellate Body 's findings. 
Canada remain ed deeply concerned with the United  States ' continued failure to comply with the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute. This failure seriously undermine d the security 
and stability of the multilateral trading system.  
1.23.   The DSB took note of the statements and agree d to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting.  
E. United  States – Certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping 
proceedings involving China: Status report by the United States (WT/DS471/17/Add.10)  
1.24.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS471/17/Add.10, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's r ecommendations in the 
case concerning certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping proceedings involving 
China . 
1.25.   The representative of the United  States  said that t he United States had provided a status 
report in this dispute on 13 June 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.  
1.26.   The represen tative of China  said that o n 22 May 2017, the DSB had adopted the Appellate 
Body Report and the modified Panel Report in this dispute. The arbitration pursuant to Article 21.3(c) 
of the DSU had determined the reasonable period of time to be 15 months, expi ring on 22 August 
2018. On 9 September 2018, in light of US non-compliance, China had requested the authorization 
from the DSB to suspend concessions or other obligations and the matter ha d been referred to 
arbitration , in accordance with Article 22.6 of the DSU. Regrettably, more than two years after the 
DSB's adoption of recommendations and rulings in this dispute, and 10 months after the expiry of 
the reasonable period of time , China  had yet to see any concrete action  from the United  States. 
Besides "consulting with the interested parties ", none of its status reports provided thus far could 
indicate any meaningful implementation progress. China was certainly very disappointed and ha d 
grave concern s over this lack of im plementation . China note d that the United States had repeated 
several times its willingness to discuss implementation with China through bilateral channel s. 
However, the prompt resolution of this dispute need ed concrete actions rather than just good words.  
So far, China  have yet to hear anything from the United States with respect to its implementation 
progress in this dispute. Without implementation, the WTO -inconsistent measures taken by the 
United  States continue d to infring e China 's legitimate economic and trade interests, distort ed the 
relevant international market, and seriously undermin ed the rules -based multilateral trading system. 
The non -compliance of the United States in dispute settlement cases had also undermined its own  
credibility in urging other WTO Members to implement rulings in other dispute settlement cases 
raised by the U nited States. Unfortunately, China was not the only victim  of US disrespect of WTO 
dispute settlement. Under the first Agenda item  at the present meeting , five out of eight surveillance 
cases relate d to US non -compliance with the DSB's recommendations and rulings. Such behavio ur 
had seriously undermined the effec tiveness and credibility of the WTO dispute settlement system, 
which r an against the interests of the whole Membership. As provided in Article  21.1 of the DSU : 
"[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 ". Once again, China  urged the United 
States to fully respect WTO rules, take concrete actions to faithfully bring its inconsistent measures 
into conformity  with WTO rules , and expeditiously implement the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings in this dispute.  
1.27.   The DSB took note of the s tatements and agree d to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting.  WT/DSB/M/430  
 
- 8 - 
 
  F. Indonesia – Measures concerning the importation of chicken meat and chicken 
products: Status report by Indonesia (WT/DS484/18/Add.9)  
1.28.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS 484/18/Add.9, which contained 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 . 
1.29.   The representative of Indonesia  said that h is country  submit ted this report in accordance with 
Article 21.6 of the DSU. Indonesia w ished  to inform the DSB that Indonesia continue d its effort to 
implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute. Indonesia was undertaking 
further adjustments of relevant regulations that w ould be concluded in the near future. Indonesia 
stood ready to continue communicati ng and holding consultations pertaining to this matt er with 
Brazil as and when necessary . 
1.30.   The representative of Brazil  said that his country  thank ed Indonesia for its status report. As 
stated at previous  DSB meetings , Brazil's concerns about Indonesia's implementation of the 
DSB's recommendations and ruling s in th is dispute remain ed unchanged, as there ha d not been 
any change in Indonesia's status report on this dispute.  Brazil ha d therefore decided to initiate 
compliance proce edings  and w ould elaborate further on the matter under  that Agenda item.  
1.31.   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.9)  
1.32.   The Chairman  drew a ttention to document WT/DS488/12/Add.9, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in the 
case concerning anti -dumping measures on certain oil country tubular goods from Korea . 
1.33.   The representative of the United  States  said that o n 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, analyze record evidence, and consider the determinatio ns 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 ed. Reg. 59359. The United 
States had provided a status report in this dispute on 13 June 2019, in accordance with Article 21.6 
of the DSU. The report note d that the US Department of Commerce had recently published a 
preliminary memorandum and was soliciting comments on the agency 's preliminary analysis. The 
United State s would continue to consult with interested parties on options to address the DSB's 
recommendations.  
1.34.   The representative of Korea  said that his country  recognize d the recent steps taken by the 
United States to implement the DSB 's recommendations and ruling s in th is dispute. In particular, 
Korea note d that on 24 May 2019, the US Department of Commerce (USDOC) had published a 
preliminary determination to bring the measures at issue into conformity with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings. Korea also acknowledg ed the procedure in which the USDOC had 
requested and received comments from interested parties on its pre liminary determination. Korea 
expect ed that the USDOC w ould issue its final determination before 12 July 2019, which was the 
date of expiry of the reasonable period of time. However, while Korea was continuing to review the 
preliminary determination, Korea  did not believe that the determination, in its current state, 
achieve d compliance with the DSB 's recommendations and rulings  in this dispute . In particular, 
Korea consider ed that the preliminary determination d id not achieve compliance in every key issue 
in this dispute, namely : (i) the use of the respondents ' actual sales data under the "preferred 
method " of the chapeau of Article 2.2.2 of the  Anti-Dumping Agreement ; (ii) the definition of the 
"same general category of products " under the "alternative met hods" of the sub-paragraphs of 
Article 2.2.2  of the Anti -Dumping Agreement; and  (iii) the calculation of the profit cap under Article 
2.2.2(iii)  of the Anti -Dumping Agreement . Korea encourage d the United States to carefully reassess 
the comments submitted by the interested parties and hope d that the United States w ould address 
these issues in its forthcoming final determination in order to bring its measures fully into compliance 
by the expiry of the reasonable period of time.  WT/DSB/M/430  
 
- 9 - 
 
  1.35.   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/DS477/2 1/Add.5 – WT/DS478/22/Add.5)  
1.36.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS477/21/Add.5 – WT/DS478/22/Add.5, 
which contained the status report by Indonesia on progress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case concerning importation of horticultural products, animals and animal 
products . 
1.37.   The representative of Indonesia  said that his country  submits its report pursuant to Article 
21.6 of the DSU. Indonesia was committed to improv ing its importation system through adjusting 
the relevant regulations in order to attain full compliance with the DSB's  recommendations and 
rulings in these disputes. As of now, Indonesia wished  to inform the DSB that a further adjustment , 
which aim ed at addressing Measures 1  to 17, was under intensive discussion and was almost 
concluded. With regard to Measure 18, the Government of Indonesia had prepared the documents 
required for the statutory changes , including the draft amendments and their respective acad emic 
drafts. These documents ha d been intensively discussed in consult ations  with all related Ministries 
and agencies. Indonesia thank ed New Zealand and the United States for their bilateral engagement. 
Indonesia w ould continue its effort s and engagement t o resolve these disputes.  
1.38.   The representative of New Zealand  said that his country  acknowledge d the steps that ha d 
been taken by Indonesia to date to bring its regulations into compliance with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in these disputes  and welcome d Indonesia's commitment of full  
compl iance. New Zealand was disappointed, however, that full  compliance ha d still not been reached 
in respect of a number of measures addressed  in the case. New  Zealand was particularly concerned 
about the failure to meet the 22 June 2019 deadline for the removal of Measure 18. Measure 18 
limited imports based on the sufficien cy of domestic supply contrary to Indonesia's WTO obligations. 
New Zealand exporters continue d to be adversely impacted by Measure 18, along with other 
measures that ha d not yet been removed as required. New Zealand w ould continue to encourage 
Indonesia to achi eve long -term, commercially meaningful compliance with the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings in these disputes . 
1.39.   The representative of the United States  said that Indonesia  continue d to fail to bring its 
measures into compliance with WTO rules. The United States and New Zealand agree d that 
significant concerns remain ed with the measures at issue, including the continued imposition of: 
harvest period restrictions, import  realization re quirements, warehouse capacity requirements, 
limited application windows, limited validity periods, and fixed licensed terms. The United  States 
remain ed willing to work with Indonesia to fully and meaningfully resolve this dispute. The United  
States  was still waiting to hear from Indonesia the concrete actions it w ould take to bring its 
measures  into full compliance. Indonesia 's statement that "further adjustment " to Measures 1 -17 
was "under intensive discussion " did not provide clarity in this regard, nor did Indonesia 's claim that 
it will make "statutory changes " with regard to Measure 18. The United States look ed forward to 
receiving further detail from Indonesia regarding the planned changes to its regulations and laws.  
1.40.   The DSB took note of the statements and agree d to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting.  
2  CHINA – TARIFF RATE QUOTAS FOR CERTAIN A GRICULTURAL PRODUCTS  
A. Implementation of the recommendations of the DSB  
2.1.  The Chairman  recall ed that in accordance with the DSU provisions, the DSB was required to 
keep under surveillance the implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings in order to 
ensure effective resolution of disputes to the benefit of all Members. In this respect, Art icle 21.3 of 
the DSU provide d that the Member concerned shall inform the DSB, within 30 days after 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. Members would recall that at its meeting on 28  May 2019, the 
DSB had adopted the Panel Report pertaining to the dispute: "China – Tariff Rate Quotas for Certain 
Agricultural Products " (DS517). He then invited the representative of China to make a statement .  WT/DSB/M/430  
 
- 10 - 
 
  2.2.  The representative of China  said that a t its meeting on 28 May 2019, the DSB had adopted the 
Panel Report in the dispute : "China – Tariff Rate Quotas for Certain Agricultural Products " (DS517). 
In accordance with Article 21.3 of the DSU, China hereby inform ed the DSB of its intentions in 
respect of implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute in a manner  
consistent with  its WTO obligations . China  said that it would need a reasonable period of time  for 
implementation. His delegation st ood ready to discuss this matter with the United States in due 
course, in accordance with Article 21.3(b) of the DSU.  
2.3.  The representative of the United States  thanked China for its statement made at the present 
meeting , indicating that it intend ed to implement the DSB 's recommendations and rulings in this 
dispute, and that it w ould need a reasonable period of time for implementation. China 's WTO -
inconsistent administration of tariff -rate quotas for wheat, corn, a nd rice impact ed market access 
for the United States and other WTO Members. The United States  looked forward to China promptly 
bringing its TRQ administration in line with its obligations. The United States  stood ready to agree 
with China, under Article 21 .3(b) of the DSU, on the reasonable period of time to implement the 
DSB's recommendations.  
2.4.  The DSB took note of the statements, and of the information provided by China regarding its 
intentions in respect of implementation of the DSB 's recommendations.  
3  UNITED STATES – CONTINU ED DUMPING AND SUBSI DY OFFSET ACT OF 200 0: 
IMPLEMENTATION OF TH E RECOMMENDATIONS AD OPTED BY THE DSB  
A. Statement by the European  Union  
3.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
the European  Union. He then invited the representative of the European  Union to speak . 
3.2.  The representative  by the European  Union  said that his delegation  request ed, once again , that 
the United States stop transferring anti-dumping  and countervailing duties to t he 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 th e DSU to submit implementation reports in this dispute. 
The EU w ould continue to p lace this item  on the Agenda of DSB meetings as long as the U nited 
States had not fully implemented the DSB's recommendations and rulings in this dispute  and until 
the disbursements cease d completely.  
3.3.  The representative of Brazil  said that a s an original party to the Byrd Amendment dispute, his 
country  wished to thank once again the EU for placing this item on the DSB's A genda.  After more 
than 16 years following the DSB's recommendations in this dispute and more than 13 years 
after the enactment of  the Deficit Reduction Act that had repealed the Byrd Amendment,  millions 
of dollars in anti -dumping and countervailing duties were still being disbursed to US domestic 
petitioners.  Brazil therefore call ed on the United States to comply fully with the DSB's 
recommendations  and rulings  in this dispute.  
3.4.   The representative of Canada  said that his country wished to thank the EU for placing this 
item on the DSB's agenda. Canada agree d with the E U that th is matter  should remain subject to the 
surveillance of the DSB until the United States ceased to apply the measures at issue in this dispute . 
3.5.  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 nece ssary 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 d id not permit the distribution of duties collected on goods entered 
after 1 Oc tober 2007, more than 11  years ago. As mentioned at the 28 May 2019 DSB meeting , the 
EU had notified the DSB that the current level of countermeasures under the Arbitrator 's 
formula  in relation to goods entered before 2007 was US$3,355.82. Accordingly, effective 1 May  
2019, the EU had announced it would be applying an additional duty of 0.001% on certain imports 
of the United States. These values were no doubt outweighed by the costs fro m preparing the DSB 
minutes on just this Agenda item. With respect to the EU 's request for status reports in this matter, WT/DSB/M/430  
 
- 11 - 
 
  as the United States  had already explained at previous DSB meetings, there was no obligation under 
the DSU to provide further status r eports once a Member announce d that it ha d implemented the 
DSB's recommendations, regardless of whether the complaining party disagree d about compliance. 
The practice of Members confirm ed this widespread understanding of Article 21.6. Responding party 
Memb ers 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) . Accordingly,  since the United States 
had informed the DSB that it ha d taken all steps necessary for compliance, there was nothing more 
for the United States to provide in a status report.  
3.6.  The representative of the European Union  said that i ndeed, the amount of the current level of 
authorized retaliation was US$3,355.82 and this was the level that ha d been established through 
arbitration between the parties that had taken  place under Article 22.6 of the DSU . This amount 
represent ed about 7 2% of the US$4, 660.86 that the United  States had collected from exports 
coming from the EU and that US authorities had disbursed to various US companies  under the 
Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000  (CDSOA) . As the United States ha d repeatedly 
accepted, the United States continue d to collect and distribute money for the period before 1 October 
2007.  The EU recall ed that th is particular provision of the  CDSOA and this practice of the United 
States had been found to be in breach of WTO rules. As long as the redistribution of collected duties 
continue d, the United States w ould remain in breach of Article 18.1 of the A nti-Dumping  Agreement 
and Article 32.1 of the SCM Agreement and full implementation w ould still have to be delivered. 
Once the transf ers of anti -dumping and countervailing duties cease d, so w ould the EU measures. 
The European Union note d that this dispute ha d been adjudicated and there were currently no further 
proceedings pending. This was a statement of fact and d id not – as the U nited States implie d – 
suggest that the issue of compliance ha d been adjudicated. Under Article 21.6 DSU, the issue of 
implementation shall remain on the DSB 's Agenda until the issue was resolved. In the "US — Offset 
Act (Byrd Amendment)" dispute (DS217, DS234 ), referred to as the "Byrd Amendment" case , the 
EU did 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 the purposes of Article 21.6  of the  DSU. 
If the U nited States did not agree that this issue remain ed unresolved, nothing prevent ed it from 
seeking a multilateral determination through a compliance procedure, just like the EU was doing in 
the "EC – Large Civil Aircraft" dispute (DS316).   
3.7.  The DSB took note of the statements.  
4  EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES  AND CERTAIN MEMBER STATES – MEASURES AF FECTING 
TRADE IN LARGE CIVIL  AIRCRAFT: IMPLEMENT ATION OF THE RECOMME NDATIONS 
ADOPTED BY THE DSB  
A. Statement by the  United States  
4.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
the United  States. He then invited the representative of the United States to speak . 
4.2.  The representative of the United  States  noted that once again the European Union ha d not 
provided Members with a status report concerning the dispute : "EC – Large Civil Aircraft " (DS316). 
As the United States  had noted at several recent DSB meetings, the EU ha d argued that Article 21.6 
of the DSU require d that "the issue of implementation shall remain on the DSB 's agenda until the 
issue is resolved ". And the EU ha d argued that where the EU as a co mplaining party d id not agree 
with another responding party Member 's "assertion that it has implemented the DSB ruling ", "the 
issue remains unresolved for the purposes of Article 21.6 DSU ". The EU now appear ed to argue that 
its submitting a compliance comm unication mean t that the EU no longer need ed to file a status 
report, even though the United States as the complaining party disagree d that the EU ha d complied. 
But that directly contradict ed the EU 's long -standing position for when it was a complaining pa rty. 
The EU 's only attempt to reconcile its stated position with its lack of a status report in this dispute 
was to argue that there was some exception to providing a status report if there were on -going 
proceedings. But there was no such exception anywher e in the DSU. The EU d id not point to any 
textual basis for its position because it c ould not. It was simply an invention by the EU to try to 
justify its acting in this dispute in a manner that was inconsistent with the legal position it ha d taken 
for other disputes. Similarly, the EU 's reliance on Article 2 of the DSU was also in error – nothing in 
that Article sa id anything about taking a matter out of the DSB 's surveillance during a compliance 
proceeding. This was simply another invention by the EU. Under the EU 's own view, the EU should WT/DSB/M/430  
 
- 12 - 
 
  be providing a status report. Yet it ha d failed to do so. Under Article 21.6 of the DSU, once a 
responding Member provide d the DSB with a status report that announce d compliance, there was 
no further "progr ess" on which it c ould report, and therefore no further obligation to provide a report. 
But as the EU allegedly disagree d with this position, it should for future meetings provide status 
reports in th e "EC – Large Civil Aircraft" (DS316) dispute.  
4.3.  The repr esentative of the European Union  said that a s in previous DSB meetings, the U nited 
States had again implied that the EU was taking inconsistent positions under Article  21.6 of the DSU, 
depending on whether the EU was a complaining party or a defending part y in a dispute. The US 
assertion remain ed without merit. As the EU ha d repeatedly explained in past meetings of the DSB, 
the crucial point for the defending party 's obligation to provide status reports to the DSB was the 
stage of the dispute. In the "EC – Large Civil Aircraft" (DS316) dispute , the dispute was at a stage 
where the defending party d id not have an obligation to submit status reports to the DSB. The EU  
wished  to remind the DSB that in the "EC – Large Civil Aircraft" (DS316) dispute , the EU had notified 
to the WTO a new set of measures in a compliance communication which had been  tabled 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 this dispute . In light of the US position, on 29 May 2018 the EU had requested consultations with 
the United States, under Art icles 4 and 21.5 of the DSU. These consultations had failed to resolve 
the dispute. Consequently, the EU had 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 recommendations and rulings " of the DSB. As part of that review, the compliance 
panel  had held a meeting with the parties and third parties, a nd was assessing the parties ' replies 
to its questions on compliance of the EU. He stressed that there was a compliance proceeding still 
on-going 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 on -going litigation. He questioned how it could be said 
that the defending party should submit "status reports " to the DSB in these circumstances . The EU 
would be very concerned with a reading of Article 21.6 of the DSU that would require the defending 
party to notify the purported "status of its implementation efforts " through the submission of status 
reports to the DSB, while dispute settlement pr oceedings on that precise issue were on -going. 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 ma tter was with the adjudicators, it was temporarily taken out of the DSB 's 
surveillance.  
4.4.  The representative of the United  States  said that t he European Union ha d argued that the 
situation in the "US — Offset Act (Byrd Amendment)" dispute (DS217, DS234) differed from the "EC 
– Large Civil Aircraft" (DS316) dispute  because, in the "US — Offset Act (Byrd Amendment)" dispute , 
"the dispute has been adjudicated and there are no further proceedings pending ". With this  
statement, the EU suggest ed that the issue of compliance in the "US — Offset Act (Byrd 
Amendment)" dispute (DS217, DS234) had been adjudicated; in fact, it ha d not. The United States 
had repealed the CDSOA measure after all of the proceedings in th at dispute. By way of contrast, in 
the "EC – Large Civil Aircraft" (DS316) dispute , the EU 's claim of compliance ha d already been 
rejected by the DSB through its adoption of compliance panel and appellate reports.  
4.5.  The DSB took note of the statements.  
5  UNITED STATES – ANTI -DUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTIE S ON RIPE OLIVES 
FROM SPAIN  
A. Request for the establishment of a panel by the European  Union (WT/DS577/3)  
5.1.  The Chairman  recall ed that the DSB had considered this matter at its meeting on 28  May 2019 
and had agreed to revert to it. He drew attention to the communication from the European Union 
contained in document WT/DS577/3 and invite d the representative of the European  Union to speak.  
5.2.  The representative of the European Union  said that his delegation wished  to reiterate its 
concerns and urge d the U nited States to bring its duties, as well as the underlying US legislation, in 
line with its WTO obligations. The EU trust ed that the panel that w ould be established at the present 
meeting  could be swiftly composed in order to start its wor k. WT/DSB/M/430  
 
- 13 - 
 
  5.3.  The representative of the United  States  said that the United States was  disappointed that the 
EU had chosen to move forward with a request for panel establishment. As the United States ha d 
explained to the EU,  the measures identified in the request were fully consistent with US obligations 
under the WTO Agreement. Duties had been  imposed on ripe olives from Spain following thorough 
anti-dumping  and countervailing duty investigations by the US Department of Commerce, and 
equally thorough injury investigations by the US International Trade Commission, fully consistent 
with WTO rules. Furthermore, as noted  at the 28 May 2019 DSB meeting, the United States ha d 
serious concerns with this panel request. Aside from the flawed substance of the request, the panel 
request include d claims that had not been identified in the EU's request for consultations, and thus 
had not been the subject of consultations. Accordingly, the United  States regret ted that the 
European Union ha d chosen for a second time to request establishment of a panel with regard to 
this matter.  The United States was prepared to engage in these proceedings and to explain to the 
panel that the E U had no legal basis for its claims.   
5.4.  The DSB took note of the statements and agree d to establish a panel in accordance with the 
provisions of Article  6 of the DSU with standard terms of reference.  
5.5.  The repr esentatives of Australia , Brazil , Canada , China , India, Japan , the Russian  Federation , 
the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia  and Switzerland  reserved their third -party rights to participate in the 
Panel 's proceedings.   
6  INDONESIA – MEASURES  CONCERNING THE IMPORTATION OF CHICK EN MEAT AND 
CHICKEN PRODUCTS  
A. Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Brazil: Request for the establishment of a panel 
(WT/DS484/19)  
6.1.  The Chairman  drew attention to the communication from Brazil contained in document 
WT/DS484/19 and inv ited the representative of Brazil to speak.  
6.2.  The representative of Brazil  said that at the present meeting, his country  was requesting  a 
compliance panel  in this dispute  because  the appropriate  measures  to implement  the DSB's 
recommendations  and rulings  had not been  taken. Indonesia 's domestic market  remained closed 
to Brazilian chicken meat and chicken products. While the panel report in this dispute had been  
adopted in November 2017 and the reasonable period of time (RPT) had ended in July 2018, Brazil 
had been trying to access the Indonesian market for ten years as of the date of the present meeting . 
Brazil was the world's largest exporter of chicken meat an d chicken products, exporting to 155 
countries. The Brazilian chicken industry was one of the most technologically advanced in the world 
and Brazilian production was internationally recognized for its high quality and sanitary standards. 
Yet, Brazil ha d been trying to export chicken meat and chicken products to Indonesia  since 2009 , 
when it had first submitted its request for an international health certificate. After ten years, 
Indonesia ha d stated, in its most recent  status report on this dispute, that it  was still in the first 
phase of analysis (desk review). Therefore, Brazil believe d that Indonesia continue d to unduly 
delay the approval  of the international health certificate for chicken meat and chicken products. 
Furthermore, Brazil also underst ood that Indonesia ha d not fully implemented the DSB 's 
recommendations and rulings with regard to : (i) the "positive list requirement", which was still 
in force;  (ii) obligations of distribution plans, found to be inconsistent in the  reports;  and 
(iii) restrictions  on amendments  of import  licenses. In  light of the lack of implementation  of the 
recommendations  of the original  Panel, Brazil unfortunately ha d to request the establishment of 
a compliance panel, as provided  for in Article  21.5 of the DSU, if possible,  through  recourse  to 
the original Panel. Brazil wished to recall that, as provided for under paragraph 3 of its sequencing 
agreement of 27 July 2018  with Indonesia , Indonesia had agreed not to object to the establishment 
of a panel when such a panel request  were to be placed on the DSB's A genda  for the first time. Thus, 
Brazil  expect ed the panel  to be establish ed at the present DSB meeting.  
6.3.  The representative of Indonesia  said that his country  regret ted Brazil's decision to request the 
establishment of a compliance panel under Article 21.5 of the DSU. However,  pursuant to  paragraph 
3 of the understandi ng between Brazil and Indonesia on sequencing , Indonesia w ould have to accept 
the establishment of a panel  at the present meeting. Indonesia accordingly did  not object to the 
request made by Brazil. Indonesia w ished  to reiterate its willingness and commitm ent to conti nue 
discussions with Brazil on possible solutions to this matter.  WT/DSB/M/430  
 
- 14 - 
 
  6.4.  The DSB took note of the statements and agree d, pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU, to refer 
to the original Panel, if possible, the matter raised by Brazil in document WT/DS484/19. It was 
agreed that t he Panel w ould have standard terms of reference.  
6.5.  The representatives of Australia , Canada , China , the European Un ion, India, Japan , the 
Republic of Korea , the Russian Federation , the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia  and the United  States  
reserved their third -party rights to participate in the Panel 's proceedings.  
7  PROPOSED NOMINATIONS  FOR THE INDICATIVE LIST OF GOVERNMENTAL AND NON -
GOVERNMENTAL PANELIS TS (WT/DSB/W/645)  
7.1.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DSB/W/645 which contain ed three new names 
proposed by Indonesia for inclusion on the Indicative List of Governmental and Non -Governmental 
Panelists, in ac cordance with Article  8.4 of the DSU. He propose d that the DSB approve the names 
contained in document WT/DSB/W/645.  
7.2.  The DSB so agree d. 
8  APPELLATE BODY APPOI NTMENTS: PROPOSAL BY  ARGENTINA; AUSTRALI A; BENIN; 
THE PLURINATIONAL ST ATE OF BOLIVIA; BRAZ IL; CANADA ; CENTRAL AFRICAN 
REPUBLIC; CHILE; CHI NA; COLOMBIA; COSTA  RICA; CUBA; DOMINICA N REPUBLIC; 
ECUADOR; EGYPT; EL  SALVADOR; THE EUROPEA N UNION; GUATEMALA; HONDURAS; 
HONG  KONG, CHINA; IC ELAND; INDIA; INDONE SIA; ISRAEL; KAZAKHS TAN; KOREA; 
LIECHTENSTEIN; MEXIC O; M OROCCO; NEW  ZEALAND;  NICARAGUA; NORTH MA CEDONIA; 
NORWAY; PAKISTAN; PA NAMA; PARAGUAY; PERU ; THE RUSSIAN  FEDERA TION; RWANDA; 
SINGAPORE; SWITZERLA ND; THE SEPARATE CUS TOMS TERRITORY OF TA IWAN, PENGHU, 
KINMEN AND MATSU; TU RKEY; UKRAINE; URUGU AY; THE BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF 
VENEZUELA AND VIET N AM (WT/DSB/W/609/REV .11) 
8.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
Mexico, on behalf of several delegations.  He drew attention to the revised proposal contained in 
document W T/DSB/W/609/Rev.11 and invited the representative of Mexico to speak . 
8.2.  The representative of Mexico , speaking on behalf of the co -sponsors of the proposal contained 
in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.11, said that the delegations in question had agreed to submit the 
joint proposal, dated 13 June 2019, to launch the AB selection processes . At the present meeting, 
Mexico, speaking on behalf of the 75 Members, wished to make the following statement.  The 
considerable number of Members submitting this joint proposal expressed a common concern with 
the current situation in the Appellate Body, which was seriously affecting its functioning and the 
overall functioning of the dispute settlement system against the best interest of its Members . The 
WTO Members had 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 pre sent meeting . 
This proposal sought to: " (i) start six selection processes: one process to replace Mr. Ricardo 
Ramírez -Hernández, whose second term expired on 30 June 2017; a second process to fill the 
vacancy occurred with the resignation of Mr. Hyun Chong  Kim with effect from 1 August 2017; a 
third process to replace Mr. Peter Van den Bossche, whose second term expired on 11 December 
2017; a fourth process to replace Mr. Shree Baboo Chekitan Servansing, whose four -year term of 
office expired on 30 Septembe r 2018; a fifth process to replace Mr. Ujal Singh Bhatia, whose second 
term will expire on 10 December 2019; and a sixth process to replace Mr. Thomas R. Graham whose 
second term will expire on 10 December 2019; (ii) to establish a Selection Committee; (ii i) to set a 
deadline of 30  days for the submission of candidacies; and (iv) to request that the Selection 
Committee issues its recommendation within 60 days after the deadline for nominations of 
candidates ". The proponents were flexible with regard to the deadlines for the AB selection 
processes , but believed that Members should consider the urgency of the situation . Mexico continued 
to urge all Members to support this proposal in the interest of the multilateral trading system and 
the dispute settlement sy stem.  
8.3.  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. The gravity 
and urgency of the situation was increasing as months went by. WTO Members had a shared WT/DSB/M/430  
 
- 15 - 
 
  responsibility to resolve this issue as soon as possible.  The EU wished to thank all Members that had 
co-sponsored the proposal to launch the AB selection processes . The EU invited all other Members 
to endorse this proposal so that new AB members could be appointed as soon as possible . The EU 
also wished to recall that concrete proposals had been submitted to the General Council with a view 
to unblocking the AB selection processes . These proposals amount ed to serious attempts at  
responding to the concerns related to AB appointments. These proposals were currently being 
discuss ed 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 fil led as soon as possible.  
8.4.  The representative of the United States  thank ed the DSB Chairman 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. The systemic concerns that the United States  had 
identified remain ed unaddressed. As the United States ha d 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 overreaching and disregard for the rules set by WTO 
Members. Through persistent overreaching, the WTO Appellate Body ha d been adding obligations 
that had never been agreed by the United States an d other WTO Members. The 2018 US Trade 
Policy Agenda had outlined several long -standing US concerns.6 The United States ha d raised 
repeated concerns that appellate reports ha d gone far beyond the text setting out WTO rules in 
varied areas, such as subsidies, 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 had  explained in recent DSB meetings, the Appellate Body ha d issued advisory opinions on 
issues not necessary to resolve a dispute and had reviewed pan el fact -finding despite appeals being 
limited to legal issues. Furthermore, the Appellate Body ha d asserted that panels had to  follow its 
reports although Members ha d 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 rules. 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 
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 Body 's 
disregard for WTO rules. Our concerns ha d not been addressed. In fact, the Appellate Body continue d 
to engage in these practices that contravene d the clear rules that WTO Members had set out in the 
DSU. The US view was and ha d been clear: when the Appellate Body overreache d and abuse d the 
authori ty 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 w ould 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 DSB Chairman to seek a solution on these important issues.  
8.5.  The representative of Canada  said that his country  support ed the statement made by Mexico. 
It had been over two years since the initiation of the AB selection process es was first proposed. 
Canada  invite d the M embers that d id not yet sponsor this proposal to give it the attention it deserve d 
and support it. The revised proposal s ought to launch the AB selection  processes for four current 
vacancies, and for two additional upcoming vacancies at the AB. Canada deep ly 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. Canada  support ed the informal process facilitated  by the DSB Chairman  under 
the auspices of the General Council to discuss the various proposals to address US concerns. Canada 
called on the United States to meaningfully engage in constructive discussions that were aimed at 
fixing the problems it perceive d with the system. Canada remain ed committed to working with other 
interested Members, including the United S tates, with a view to address those concerns and 
undertake the AB selection process es expeditiously.   
8.6.  The representative of Cuba, speaking on behalf of the members of the Latin American and 
Caribbean Group ( GRULAC) that were also WTO Members, wished to und erline, once again, their 
serious concern s at the ongoing and prolonged situation  regarding  the impasse in the AB selection 
processes . It was neither positive nor constructive that the search for a solution to this very 
important question for the WTO continue d to drag on, as this undermin ed the foundations of the 
                                                
6 Office of the US Trade Representative, 2018 President's Trade Policy Agenda, at 22 -28. WT/DSB/M/430  
 
- 16 - 
 
  multilateral trading system . WTO Members part of  the GRULAC  welcomed  the informal process on 
Appellate Body matters under the auspices of the Genera l Council established to maintain a dialogue 
aimed at unblocking the AB selection processes . This showed the urgency and importance of this 
issue. A number of proposals had been submitted, which were aimed at achieving this objective. 
Some of these proposa ls had been submitted by WTO Members part of the GRULAC . Regrettably, 
no concrete progress had been made. WTO Members part of the GRULAC  were therefore paying 
close attention to the concerns raised with regard to  the functioning of the Appellate Body. Thes e 
concerns were being used to justify the blockage of the AB selection processes . Once again, it was 
worth noting that under Article  17.2 of the DSU, vacancies shall be filled as they arise. This 
mandatory provision continued to be  violated.  Similarly, WTO Members part of the GRULAC  looked 
forward  to any concrete proposals  that could address specific concerns raised . However, t he search 
for a solution to systemic concerns should not be an obstacle to the functioning of the dispute 
settlement system. All Members should demonstrate a willingness to find solutions . Otherwise, as 
of 10 December 2019, the Appellate Body w ould cease to  function. WTO Members part of the 
GRULAC  wished to continue to contribute to finding a definitive solution to this urgent problem and 
supported the efforts of the DSB Chairman in this regard .  
8.7.  The representative of Norway  said that his country, again, wished to refer to its statements 
made on this matter at previous DSB meetings . Norway wished to  underline its serious concerns  
about this matter and said that it was becoming more and more urgent  to resolve this situation . In 
its statement made at the present meeting, t he United States had  stated that all Members had to 
follow the rules. Similarly, Norway wished to underline  that Members  should follow the rules and fill 
the AB vacancies, as prescribe d in the DSU.   
8.8.  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 commence  the AB selection  process es. As other Members ha d stated, this matter ha d 
become even more pressing with the need to commence a fifth and sixth selection process to replace 
two of the three remaining members currently serving on the Appellate Body. To this end, Australia  
welcome d the leadership provided by the DSB  Chair man, as Facilitator of the General Council 's 
informal process on Appellate Body matters. Australi a was mindful of the work required to address 
key concerns, as outlined in the Facilitator's  progress  report, and was strongly committed to this 
work ahead of the summer break. Australia  acknowledge d the valuable contributions of Members to 
this process  and encourage d further constructive contributions in developing a pragmatic solution in 
the interests of all Members.  
8.9.  The representative of Japan  said that his country wished to  refer to its statement s made at 
previous DSB meetings on this matter . Japan support ed the informal process under the auspices of 
the General Council on matter s related to the functioning of the Appellate Body. The active 
engagement of all WTO Members was essential to the prompt  and successful conclusion of th at 
process.  
8.10.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  said that his delegation wished t o refer to its statements 
made on this matter at previous DSB meetings. His delegation would  continue to work  with the DSB 
Chairman  and all Members and look ed forward to finding a solution to this impasse as soon as 
possible.  
8.11.   The representative of Switzerland  said that her country wished to refer to its statements made 
at previous DSB meetings  on this matter . Switzerland deeply regret ted that the DSB was still unable 
to launch the AB selection process es. The eventuality of the Appellate Body losing its minimum 
quorum was looming. The situation was alarming. Once again , Switzerland  urged all Members to 
engage constructively in order to find con crete solutions without further delay. For its part , 
Switzerland  stood ready to continue the discussions in the context of the informal process on 
Appellate Body matters under the auspices of the General Council.  
8.12.   The representative of Singapore  said that his country  wished to refer to its statements  made 
on this matter at past DSB meetings  and reiterate d its serious systemic concerns o ver the failure to 
launch the AB selection process es. The joint proposal made at the present meeting marked a new 
milestone as it include d the launch of AB selection processes to fill the imminent vacancies of Mr . 
Ujal Singh Bhatia and Mr . Thomas R. Graham. This mean t that there was now a total of six pending 
AB vacancies. More  importantly, there were less than six months before the Appellate Body would 
be down to just one member, if vacancies remain ed unfilled. Even as Members continue d to engage WT/DSB/M/430  
 
- 17 - 
 
  in the informal process for focused discussions led by the DSB Ch airman, in his capacity as 
Facilitator, Singapore wishe d to emphasi ze that the AB selection process es should be allowed to 
proceed unconditionally. Singapore w ould continue to engage constructively and collaboratively 
towards resolving this impasse.  
8.13.   The representative o f China  said that his country  wished  to echo the statement made by 
Mexico on behalf of 75 Members. China regret ted that  the DSB , once again , had failed to initiate the 
AB selection process es which took Members one step further to push ing the Appellate Body "off the 
cliff". China  recall ed that Members ha d a shared obligation to promptly fill the vacancies of the 
Appellate Body , as required by Article 17.2  of the DSU. The clear text of that provision indicate d that 
such responsibility shall  be fulfilled unconditionally. Nevertheless, with a view to breaking the 
deadlock in the AB selection  processes , Members ha d undertaken  various efforts to accommodate 
the US concerns . Various proposals, including the joint proposals co -sponsored by the EU,  China and 
other Members, ha d been tabled and discussed in informal meetings under the auspices of the 
General Council. Regrettably, Members  had yet to see the same seriousness and sincerity from the 
United States. Without constructive engagement  from the United States , the paralysis of the 
Appellate Body seem ed inevitable . This would bring a full scale of uncertainties to the whole 
Membership. From implementation to negotiations, the potential damages were far larger than 
simply  the loss of appellate revie w. To avoid unintended consequences, China call ed on all Members 
to act responsively and cooperatively in order to break the impasse in the AB selection processes 
without further delay. China  noted that the United States  had recently opposed  amending  the DSU 
and had stated  that the current text was clear enough and needed no further adjustment. However, 
that assertion contradict ed its own position. For instance, Article 17.12 of the DSU require d that the 
Appellate Body address each of the issu es raised in an appeal. Therefore, it seem ed that the 
Appellate Body had done nothing wrong and had simply  fulfilled its duty by examining all the issues 
raised in an appeal. If Members truly w ished  to limit appellate review to what was  necessary to solve 
a dispute, certain clarifications or changes to this Article were needed. For more than 70 years, the 
United States ha d been the primary architect and beneficiary of the rules -based multilateral trading 
system. According to the 2018 Economic Report of the US President, the United States obtained  
better outcomes through  formal WTO adjudication rather than negotiations, increasing the 
probability that the complaints w ould be resolved and decreasing the time it t ook to remove the 
trade barriers at issue . China noted  that t he United States ha d won 85.7% of the cases it ha d 
initiated before the WTO since 1995, compared with a global average of 84.4%. When the 
United  States was the respondent, it still had won 25% of the time, a rate that was better than the 
global average rate of 16.6%. At the same time, even regarding  disputes between other WTO 
Members not relating to the U nited States, such as  a dispute between the European Union and China, 
a positive solution w ould also contribute to a viable international  business environment , which w ould 
eventually benefit American businesses. Accordingly, if the WTO Appellate Body were to become 
paralyzed, not only the interest s of the entire  Membership , but also th ose of the United States w ould 
be diminished. It w ould be extraordinar ily naive to believe that a Member c ould enforce its law s 
unilaterally around the world and that a country c ould remain  great and prosper ous in isolation from 
the international community and without a stable and predictable international trading system. It 
should also be emphasized that a collapse of the adjudication function of the WTO would be 
extremely harmful to  the interests of developing -country Members, sinc e they w ould have less 
negotiatin g power  when  facing protectionism in an era of the law of the jungle. It seem ed that the 
likely scenario would be that those most likely to be hurt w ould be th ose least able to protect 
themselves. It would be easy to destro y a successful system, but it would not be easy to rebuil d 
such a system . The Appellate Body procedures m ight need improve ment, and as a frequent user  of 
the system , China was ready to work with all other WTO Members, and with the DSB Chairman, to 
find a p roper solution. However, blocking the AB selection processes wa s not the right way  to go 
about it . On the one hand, h istory w ould remember those who contribute d to the enhance ment of  
the multilateral trading system and the rule of law. On the other hand, as one Appellate Body 
member ha d recently stated  in his farewell speech, history w ould not judge kindly those responsible 
for the collapse of the WTO dispute settlement system.  
8.14.   The representative of Uruguay  said that his country supported  the statements made by Mexico 
on behalf of the 75 co -sponsors of the proposal contained in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.1 1, as 
well as Cuba's statement made on behalf of members of the GRULAC that were also WTO Members.  
Uruguay highlighted that WTO Members w ere engaged in constructive and positive discussions under 
the auspices of the General Council thanks to the leadership of the DSB Chairman as Facilitator  and 
the General Council Chair . Proposals made by Members were aimed at improving the functioning of WT/DSB/M/430  
 
- 18 - 
 
  the Appellate Body. As a result, it would be appropriate to launch the AB selection processes in order 
to ensure that th e WTO could continue to count on its dispute settlement mechanism .  
8.15.   The representative of Korea  said that his country  wished  to refer to its statements made at  
previous DSB meetings. Korea support ed the statement made by Mexico based on the revised joint 
proposal contained in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.11 of which Korea was a co-sponsor. The 
revised joint proposal included two a dditional selection processes to replace the two outgoing AB 
Members whose second term s of office  would expire in six months. Korea w ished  to express and 
share its deep concern and a sense of urgency regarding the filling  of the vacancies in the Appellate 
Body. Korea  looked forward to making good progress in the informal process led by the DSB  
Chairman, as Facilitator under the auspices of the General Council, as soon as possible.  
8.16.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that h is delegation  wished to refer to its 
statements made at previous DSB meetings and to reiterate its disappointment and concern with 
the impasse in the AB selection processes , which remain ed unresolved. His delegation  appreciate d 
the efforts made by various Members to address a Member 's concerns with the Appellate Body in 
the informal process under the auspices of the General Council. Hong Kong , China  was committed 
to engaging constructively in order to find a solution as soon as possible. Hong Kong, China  urged 
all Members, and in particular those that ha d raised systemic concerns , to do the same. Hong Kong, 
China  wished to  emphasize that the discussion on improving the DSU should not be a reason to 
delay the AB appointments. It was not justifiable to attach pre -conditions to the launch of the AB 
selection process es. Hong Kong, China  called on Members to lift the blockage of  the AB selection 
process es without further delay.  
8.17.   The representative of India said that his 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 comm ence the AB selection process es. Members ha d a collective responsibility to fill the 
vacancies in the Appellate Body as they ar ose. Therefore, India called on all Members to engage 
constructively pursuant to Article 17.2  of the DSU so as to immediately sta rt the AB selection 
process es as a priority.  
8.18.   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. The proposal 
contained in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.11 covered the filling of six vacancies, with the 
departures of Mr. Thomas R. Graham and Mr. Ujal Singh Bhatia in December  2019. In order to 
resolve this issue , Members  had to discuss the proposals put forward  to over come this impasse. To 
this end, Brazil welcome d the progress achieved by the informal process under the auspices of the 
General Council. Members  had demonstrated that they were  ready to engage in pragmatic 
discussions to resolve these  issues.  
8.19.   The representative of Mexico , speaking on behalf of the 75 co -sponsors of the proposal  
contained in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.11,  expressed regret that for the twenty -fourth time, 
Members still had not been able to start the AB selection processes and had continuously failed to 
fulfill their duties as WTO Members . The fact that a Member might have concerns about certain 
aspects of the functioning of the Appellate  Body could not serve as a pretext to impair and disrupt 
the work of the Appellate Body . There w as no legal justification for the current impasse in the AB 
selection processes, which resulted in nullification and impairment for many Members . Article  17.2 
of the DSU clearly stated  that: "[v]acancies shall be filled as they arise" . No discussions shoul d 
prevent the Appellate Body from continuing to operate fully and Members had to comply with their 
obligation under the DSU to fill the AB vacancies . 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 .  
8.20.   The representative of Mexico  said that the proposal contained in document 
WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.11 , covered  the selection processes of six of the seven Appellate B ody 
members. Despite the repeated attempts made by 75 delegations to launch  the AB selection 
process es to fill the vacancies, the Appellate Body w ould not be operational in 24 weeks. This 
situation was completely  unacceptable and w ould have a serious syste mic imp lication on the 
Organization. Each and every Member  had agreed that Members ha d the right to appeal the 
recommendations issued by panels. This right was an essential part of the dispute settlement system 
and the multilateral trading system. It was also one of the most significant outcomes of the Uruguay 
Round. It was unacceptable that t he concerns raised by a single Member deprive d 164 Members of WT/DSB/M/430  
 
- 19 - 
 
  this right. At present, more than 20  Members, individually and/o r collectively, ha d submitted over 
ten proposals to the General Council seeking to address the concerns expressed by one Member. 
This should  allow Members  to immediately begin the AB selection process es. More importantly, 
Members had to  separate  the AB sel ection process es from any other systemic concerns. All Members 
had a shared responsibility to resolve this issue as soon as possible. Therefore, Mexico wished to 
reiterate its call on Members to act responsibly by immediately beginning the selection proces ses to 
replace six of the seven Appellate Body members.  
8.21.   The representative of Colombia  said that his country wished to recall that over two years  ago, 
seven Latin American countries ha d submitted th e proposal  to start  the AB selection process for the 
first time . At the present meeting,  these countries continue d to hope that this w ould lead to a 
solution that w ould allow Members  to launch  the selection process es for six out of the seven 
members of the Appellate Body. As at the present meeting , only 75 Members co-sponsored the 
proposal, which d id not represent half of the Membership.  Therefore,  Colombia  urged all remaining 
Members who value d the importance of the multilateral trading system to co-sponsor  this proposal. 
Colombia  called upon Members , once again , to make progress in the informal process  facilitated by 
the DSB  Chairman. Colombia hoped that this w ould help to unblock th e impasse in the AB selection  
process es.  
8.22.   The representative of New Zealand  said that his country  wished to reiterate its support for 
the joint proposal  contained in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.11. New  Zealand  emphasi zed the 
importance of commencing the AB selection process es as soon as possible , and wished to refer to 
its statements made  on this  matter  at previous DSB meetings . 
8.23.   The Chairman  thanked all delegations for their statements. He said that, as in the past, the 
DSB would take note of the statements expressing the respective positions, which would be duly 
reflected in the minutes of this meeting . As a number of delegations had stated, this matter urgently 
required political engagement on the part of all WTO  Members . Indeed, that requirement was only 
becoming more urgent with each passing DSB meeting. As some Members had stated at the present 
meeting , the proposal contained in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.11 relate d to appointments of six 
of the seven members of the Appellate Body. As a number of delegations had referenced, under the 
auspices of the General Council, he had agreed to assist  the Chair of the General Council, in his 
personal capacity as Facilitator, in an informal process of focused discussions on Appellate Body 
matters. He then recalled that on 7  May 2019, he had provided a second progress report to the 
General Council on the se informal consultations . This report had been circulated to all Members in 
document JOB/GC/217 . The Chairman said that h e currently continu ed the informal process of 
solution -focused discussions in a range of different formats. It was his  intention to ho ld an open -
ended informal meeting for transparency purposes and to make another progress report to the 
General Council at its meeting on 23  July 2019.  
8.24.   The DSB took note of the statements.  
 
 
__________