RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DSB/M/45 5 
27 October  2021 
(21-8127) Page: 1/17 
Dispute Settlement Body  
30 August  2021   
 
  
MINUTES OF MEETING  
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD  
ON 30 AUGUST 2 0211 
Chairman : H.E.  Mr Didier  Chambovey  (Switzerland ) 
Prior to the adoption of the Agenda : (i) the Chairman  welcomed all delegations participating in the 
meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body  (DSB)  both in -person and remotely ; (ii) the Chairman  said 
that he wished to recall a few technical instructions regarding the virtual participation of delegations. 
If a Member was unable to take the floor during the meeting because of a technical issue, the 
delegation c ould inform himself or the Secretariat and that Agenda item wo uld remain open until the 
delegation c ould take the floor. Hopefully any technical issue would be quickly resolved. In the 
alternative, the item would remain open temporarily, the meeting would proceed to the next Agenda 
item, and then the DSB would revert  to the open item after the technical issue ha d been resolved. 
If a technical issue remain ed unresolved, the delegation ha d the option to send the statement to the 
Secretariat with the request that it be read out by the Secretariat on behalf of that delega tion during 
the meeting so that the statement could be reflected in the minutes of the meeting ; 
and (iii) the Chairman  made a  short statement regarding item 4 of the proposed Agenda of the 
28 April DSB meeting pertaining to the DS574 dispute. He said that as Members recalled, this matter 
had been removed from the proposed Agenda to allow time for the Chairman's consultations with 
each interested party regarding this Agenda item. At the present meeting, the Chairman informed 
delegations that he continued to consult with each interested party on this matter and that those 
consultations were ongoing . 
 
The DSB took note  of the statements and adopted  the Agenda.  
 
 
Table of Contents  
 
1  SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY 
THE DSB  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................  2 
A. United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from 
Japan: Status report by the United States  ................................ ................................ ............  3 
B. United States – Section 110 (5) of the US Copyright Act: Status report by the 
United  State  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....................  3 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and market ing of biotech 
products: Status report by the European Union  ................................ ................................ ..... 4 
D. United States – Anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential 
washers from Korea: Status report by the United States  ................................ .........................  5 
E. United States – Certain methodologies and their applica tion to anti -dumping 
proceedings involving China: Status report by the United States  ................................ .............  5 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products: Status 
report by Indonesia  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  6 
 
1 The proceedings of this meeting were held in a hybrid format.  WT/DSB/M/45 5 
- 2 - 
  2  UNITED STATES – CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT OF 2 000: 
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB  ..........................  6 
A. Statement by the European Union  ................................ ................................ ...................  6 
3  EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AND CERTAIN MEMBER STATES – MEASURES 
AFFECTING TRADE IN LARGE CIVIL AIRCRAFT: IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 
RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB  ................................ ................................ .... 7 
A. Statement by the United States  ................................ ................................ ......................  7 
4  CHINA – TARIFF RATE QUOTAS FOR CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS  ..................  8 
A. Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by China: Request for the establishment of a panel  ..........  8 
5  PANAMA – MEASURES CONCERNING THE IMPORTATION OF CERTAIN 
PRODUCTS FROM COSTA RICA  ................................ ................................ .........................  9 
A. Request for the establishment of a panel by Costa Rica  ................................ ......................  9 
6  CHINA – ANTI -DUMPING MEASURES ON STAINLESS STEEL PRODUCTS FROM 
JAPAN  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................  10 
A. Request for the establish ment of a panel by Japan  ................................ ............................  10 
7  STATEMENT BY TUNISIA REGARDING THE PANEL REPORT IN THE DISPUTE: 
"MOROCCO  – DEFINITIVE ANTI -DUMPING ME ASURES ON SCHOOL EXERCISE 
BOOKS FROM TUNISIA"  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 11 
8  APPELLATE BODY APPOINTMENTS: PROPOSAL BY AFGHANISTAN; ANGOLA; 
ARGENTINA; AUSTRALI A; BANGLADESH; BENIN; PLURINATIONAL STATE OF 
BOLIVIA; BOTSWANA; BRAZIL; BURKINA FASO; BURUNDI; CABO VERDE; 
CAMEROON; CANADA; CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC; CHAD; CHILE; CHINA; 
COLOMBIA; CONGO; COSTA RICA; CÔTE D'IVOIRE; CUBA; DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC 
OF CONGO; DJIBO UTI; DOMINICAN REPUBLIC; ECUADOR; EGYPT; EL SALVADOR; 
ESWATINI; THE EUROPEAN UNION; GABON; THE GAMBIA; GHANA; GUATEMALA; 
GUINEA; GUINEA BISSAU; HONDURAS; HONG KONG, CHINA; ICELAND; INDIA; 
INDONESIA; ISRAEL; KAZAKHSTAN; KENYA; REPUBLIC OF KOREA; LESOTHO; 
LIECHTENSTEIN; MADAGASCAR; MALAWI; MALAYSIA; MALDIVES; MALI; 
MAURITANIA; MAURITIUS; MEXICO; REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA; MOROCCO; 
MOZAMBIQUE; NAMIBIA; NEPAL; NEW ZEALAND; NICARAGUA; NIGER; NIGERIA; 
NORTH MACEDONIA; NORWAY; PAKISTAN; PANAMA; PARAGUAY; PERU; QATAR; 
RUSSIAN FEDERATION; RWANDA; SENEGAL; SEYCHELLES; SIERRA LEONE; 
SINGAPORE; SOUTH AFRICA; SWITZERLAND; THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS 
TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU; TANZANIA; THAILAND; 
TOGO; TUNISIA; TURKEY; UGANDA; UKRAINE; UNITED KINGDOM; URUGUAY; THE 
BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA; VIET NAM; ZAMBIA AND ZIMBABWE 
(WT/DSB/W/609/REV.19)  ................................ ................................ ............................  13 
1  SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB  
A. United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from Japan : Status 
report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.2 18) 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of the U S Copyright Act : Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/A dd.193) 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products : 
Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/A dd.156) 
D. United States – Anti-dumpi ng and countervailing measures on large residential washers from 
Korea : Status report by the United States (WT/DS464/17/A dd.40) WT/DSB/M/45 5 
- 3 - 
  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.32) 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products : Status report by 
Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/A dd.27 – WT/DS478/22/A dd.27) 
1.1.  The Chairman  noted that there were six sub -items under this Agenda item concerning status 
reports submitted by delegations pursuant to Article  21.6 of the DSU. As Members recalled, 
Article  21.6 requires that: "Unless the DSB decides otherwise, the issue of implementation of the 
recommendations or rulings shall be p laced on the Agenda of the DSB meeting after six  months 
following the date of establishment of the reasonable period of time and shall remain on the DSB's 
Agenda until the issue is resolved." Under this Agenda item, he wished to invite delegations to 
provide up -to-date information about their compliance efforts. He also wished to remind delegations 
that, as provided for in Rule  27 of the Rules of Procedure for DSB meetings: "Representatives should 
make every effort to avoid the repetition of a full debate a t each meeting on any issue that has 
already been fully debated in the past and on which there appears to have been no change in 
Members' positions already on record."  
A. United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from 
Japan : Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.2 18) 
1.2.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS184/15/Add.21 8, 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 19 August 2021, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. The United States 
had addressed the DS B's recommendations and rulings with respect to the calculation of 
anti-dumping margins in the hot -rolled steel anti -dumping duty investigation at issue. With respect 
to the recommendations of the DSB that ha d yet to be addressed, the US Administration w ould 
confer with the US Congress with respect to the appropriate statutory measures that would resolve 
this matter.  
1.4.  The representative of Japan  said that Japan thank ed the United States for the latest status 
report and its statement  at the present meeting . Japan once again call ed on the United States to 
fully implement the DSB recommendations and rulings so as to resolve this matter.  
1.5.  The DSB took note  of the statements and 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.1 93) 
1.6.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS160/24/Add.19 3, which contained the stat us 
report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in the 
case concerning Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act . 
1.7.  The representative of the United States  said that t he United States had provided a status report 
in this dispute on 19 August 2021, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. The US Administration 
would continue to confer with the European Union, and with the US Congress, in order to reach a 
mutually satisfactory resolution o f this matter.  
1.8.  The representative of the European Union  said that the European Union thank ed the United 
States for its status report and its statement  at the present meeting . The European Union  referred 
to its previous statements  and wished  to resolve this  case as soon as possible . 
1.9.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . WT/DSB/M/45 5 
- 4 - 
  C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products : Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.1 56) 
1.10.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS291/37/Add.15 6, which contained the 
status report by the European Union on progress in the implementation of the DSB's 
recommendations in the case concerning measures affecti ng the approval and marketing of biotech 
products . 
1.11.  The representative of the European Union  said that o n 17 August 2020, the Commission had 
adopted seven authorisations for genetically  modified organisms ( GMOs ) for food and feed use. 
Those authorisations c oncern ed 3 new GM Os of maize2, 2 new GM Os of soybeans3, 1 new GM O of 
oilseed rape4 and 1 new GM O of cotton.5 On that date the Commission  also renewed two GM Os of 
maize6 and one GM O of oilseed rape.7 The United States frequently refer red to European Union  
member States ' justifications issued during the meetings of the Standing Committee and Appeal 
Committee as being "political " and "not science -based ". The European Union wished to stress that 
the comitology procedure, including when measures were referred to the appeal committee, was an 
intrinsic and important part of the European Union's  decision -making process, and that its application 
was not limited to the authorisation procedure of GMOs. In addition, the European Union wished  to 
underline  that the final decision taken on the authorisation was clearly science -based as those GMOs 
were authorised where the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) had finalised its scientific opinion 
and concluded that there were no safety concerns.  Efforts to re duce delays in authorisation 
procedures were constantly maintained at a high level at all stages of the authorisation procedure. 
However, it was worth noting that, when applicants d id not act expeditiously in certain applications, 
this ha d a knock -on effec t on the overall average time needed for risk assessment.  It was important 
to recogni ze the increased transparency in the EFSA 's scientific assessment of GMOs, resulting from 
the new Transparency Regulation8, which should help to reinforce trust in the safety of the authorised 
GMOs.  The E uropean Union  acted in line with its WTO obligations. The European Union  recall ed that 
its approval system was not covered by the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  
1.12.  The representative of the United States  thanked the European Union for its status report and 
its statement made at the present meeting. The United States understood that on 17 August this 
year, the European Union had approved seven biotech crops – three for corn, two for soybeans, one 
for canol a, and one for cotton – and issued three renewals for previously authorized crops – two for 
corn and one for canola. The United States was pleased to see that the European Union had moved 
to issue approvals for these products.  However, it was the United St ates' understanding that there 
were still approximately eight products for which the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) had 
successfully completed a risk assessment, yet which had not received final approval through 
comitology. This was illustrative of the undue delays in the EU's biotech approval process. The United 
States had described these problems in detail at nearly every monthly meeting of the DSB since the 
European Union began submitting status reports more than thirteen years prior. The United S tates 
had also discussed these concerns in the recent EU -US Biotechnology Consultation on Friday 
18 June 2021, a venue intended to normalize trade in biotech products. The United States continued 
to engage in good faith in those Consultations, and had prov ided recommendations on several 
occasions as to how the European Union could address the undue delays in its approval procedures. 
The United States requested that the European Union move to issue final approvals for all products 
that had completed science -based risk assessments at EFSA, including those products that were 
with the Standing Committee and Appeals Committee.   
1.13.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
 
2 Maize MON 87427 x MON 87460 x MON 89304 x 1507 x MON 87411 x 59122 and sub -combinations, 
maize 1507 x MON 810 x MIR162 x NK603 and sub -combinations, maize MZIR098.  
3 Soybean DAS -81419 -2, soyb ean DAS –81419–2 x DAS –44406–6. 
4 Oilseed rape Ms8xRf3xGT73 . 
5 Cotton GHB119 x GHB614 x T304 -40. 
6 Maize Bt11, maize MON 88017 x MON 810.  
7 Oilseed rape GT73 (only renewed for feed, renewal for food currently at EFSA) . 
8 Regulation (EU) 2019/1381 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on the 
transparency and sustainability of the EU risk assessment in the food chain and amending Regulations (EC) 
No. 178/2002, (EC) No. 1829/2003, (EC) No. 1831/2003, (EC) No. 2065/2003, (EC) No. 1935/ 2004, (EC) 
No. 1331/2008, (EC) No. 1107/2009, (EU) 2015/2283 and Directive 2001/18/EC (OJ L 231, 6.9.2019, 
p. 1-28). WT/DSB/M/45 5 
- 5 - 
  D. United States – Anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential 
washers from Korea : Status report by the United States (WT/DS464/17/Add. 40) 
1.14.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS464/17/Add. 40, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progr ess in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in the 
case concerning anti -dumping and countervailing measures on large residential washers from Korea . 
1.15.  The representative of the United States  said that t he United States had provided a status 
report  in this dispute on 19 August 2021, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. On 6 May 2019, 
the US  Department of Commerce published a notice in the US Federal Register announcing the 
revocation of the anti -dumping and countervailing duty orders on impor ts of large residential 
washers from Korea (84 Fed. Reg. 19,763 ( 6 May 2019)).  With this action, the United States ha d 
completed implementation of the DSB recommendations concerning those anti -dumping and 
countervailing duty orders. The United States w ould consult with interested parties on options to 
address the recommendations of the DSB relating to other measures challenged in this dispute.  
1.16.  The representative of Korea  said that Korea thank ed the United States for its status report 
and its statement  at the present meeting . Korea again urge d the United States to take prompt and 
appropriate steps to implement the DSB recommendations for the "as such " measures at issue in  
this dispute.   
1.17.  The representative of Canada  said that t he United States continue d to fail to comply with the 
DSB's ruling, arising out of the Appellate Body report in "US - Washing Machines ", that the 
"differential pricing  methodology" (DPM) was "as such" inconsistent with the WT O Agreements . 
The United States ha d also ignored the DSB's recommendation that it must comply with its 
obligations. Instead, the United States continue d to apply the " as such" -inconsistent  DPM in 
investigations with respect to foreign companies and continue d to collect cash deposits from foreign 
exporters on the basis of this inconsistent methodology. The reasonable period of time to implement 
the recommendations relati ng to the "as such" WTO -inconsistency of the DPM had expired more 
than three years prior. However, in its latest status report, the United States had  declare d that it 
continue d to consult with interested parties. The continued use of the DPM by the United States ha d 
obliged Members to resort to several dispute settlement proceedings concerning th at measure. This 
was an inefficient and unnecessary use of WTO dispute settlement resources. Canada remain ed 
deeply concerned a bout the US continued failure to comp ly with the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings in "US - Washing Machines ". That failure seriously undermine d the security and predictability 
of the multilateral trading system . 
1.18.  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. 32) 
1.19.  The Chairman  drew attention to docume nt WT/DS471/17/Add.3 2, which contained the status 
report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB's recommendations in the 
case concerning certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping proceedings involving 
China . 
1.20.  The representative of the United States  said that t he United States had provided a status 
report in this dispute on 19 August 2021, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. As explained 
in that report, the United States w ould consult with interested partie s on options to address the 
recommendations of the DSB.  
1.21.  The representative of China  said that China thanked the United States for its latest status 
report. However, it was disappointing that three years after the expiry of the reasonable period of 
time, the United States had still fail ed to implement the adopted rulings and recommendations in 
this dispute. Prompt compliance was critical to the effectiveness and credibility  of the dispute 
settlement system , which was in the best interests of the entire  Membership. China  urged the United 
States to hono ur its obligation under  Article 21.1 of the DSU by  bringing its measures into  full 
compliance in this dispute without further delay.  
1.22.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . WT/DSB/M/45 5 
- 6 - 
  F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products : Status 
report by Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/Add. 27 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 27) 
1.23.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS477/21/Add.2 7 – WT/DS478/22/Add.2 7, 
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 . 
1.24.  The representative of Indonesia  said that Indonesia had submit ted its status  report pursuant 
to Article 21.6 of the DSU. Indonesia wished  to reiterate its commitment to implementing the 
recommendations and ruling of the DSB in these disputes. On measure 18, as reported in previous 
DSB meetings, Indonesia ha d removed all Articles in the relevant Laws that were found to be 
inconsistent with W TO rules through the enactment of Law No.  11/2020 on Job Creation. With 
respect to measure s 1-17, Indonesia wished  to reassur e that significant adjustment s, to comply  with 
the recommendations and rulings of the DSB , had been caried out through amendments of the 
relevant M inistry of Agriculture and Ministry of Trade Regulations. Those adjustments include d the 
removal of disputed measures  including , inter alia , the:  harvest period restriction ; import realization 
requiremen ts; six-months harvest requirement ; and reference price. Indonesia was commit ted to 
engag e with New Zealand and the United States and reaffirm ed its commitment to implementing 
the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in these disputes . 
1.25.  The representative  of the United States  thanked Indonesia for its overview the previous month 
of the adjustments it had made to the laws and regulations that were the subject of the DSB 
recommendation. The United States was reviewing Indonesia's new laws and regulations in light of 
Indonesia's recent statements and status reports. It seemed, however, that Indonesia was currently 
in the process of issuing new regulations implementing Law No. 11/2020 on Job Creation that would 
affect Indonesia's import licensing regimes. In pa rticular, the United States understood that 
Indonesia was developing a Presidential Regulation on Commodity Balances, as well as new Ministry 
of Agriculture and Ministry of Trade regulations. The United States would appreciate further clarity 
on which regu lations currently comprised Indonesia's import licensing regimes and on forthcoming 
regulations that would affect the regimes. To that end, the United States would engage bilaterally 
with Indonesia with its questions in order to enable the United States to  better understand 
Indonesia's efforts to implement the DSB's recommendation. The United States remained willing to 
work with Indonesia to fully resolve this dispute . 
1.26.  The representative of New Zealand  said that New Zealand thank ed Indonesia for its status 
report,  and acknowledge d Indonesia 's commitment to comply fully with the WTO decision. Both 
compliance deadlines ha d, however, long since expired, and a number of measures remain ed 
non-compliant. New Zealand underst ood that Indone sia's Parliament ha d enacted Law No. 11/2020 
on Job Creation, but New Zealand did not yet have the information necessary to assess what impact 
this w ould have on Indonesia 's compliance with the WTO decision, in particular in respect of 
Measure  18. New Zeal and invite d Indonesia to provide further details as soon as possible , and look ed 
forward to further bilateral engagement to th at end. 
1.27.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
2  UNITED STATES – CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT OF 2000 : 
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB  
A. Statement by the European Union  
2.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
the European Union an d he invited the representative of the European Union to speak . 
2.2.  The representative of the European Union  said that d espite long -standing reassurances of the 
United States  that the DSB 's recommendations and rulings were fully implemented by adopting the 
Deficit Reduction Act, disbursements under the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act ( CDSOA ) 
had been made every year since then. Every disbursement that still t ook place under t hat legal basis 
was clearly an act of non -compliance with DSB recommendations and rulings. For the item to be 
considered resolved and removed from the DSB's surveillance, the United States had to  fully stop WT/DSB/M/45 5 
- 7 - 
  transferring collected duties. The European Union maintain ed that such full compliance was needed, 
independently of the cost resulting from the application of such limited duties. The E uropean Union  
also renew ed its call on the United States to abide by its obligation under Article 21.6 of the DSU to 
submit implementation reports in this dispute, as the issue remain ed unres olved. If the United States 
did not agree that the issue remain ed unresolved, nothing prevent ed it from seeking a multilateral 
determination through a compliance procedure.  
2.3.  The representative of the United States  said that as the United States had noted at previous 
DSB meetings, the Deficit Reduction Act – which included a provision repealing the Continued 
Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 – was enacted into law more than 15 years prior, in 
February 2006. The  Deficit Reduction Act did not permit the distribution of duties collected on goods 
entered after 1 October 2007, more than 13 years prior. Accordingly, the United States had long 
ago implemented the DSB's recommendations and informed WTO Members of its im plementation. 
At the previous DSB meeting, the European Union had once again stated its view that the United 
States had an "obligation" under Article 21.6 to submit a status report in this dispute. Notably, the 
European Union did not call on any other Memb er in any other dispute to abide by this so -called 
"obligation," despite the fact that several Members – including the European Union – were in the 
same situation as the United States. As the United States had explained repeatedly, there was no 
obligation under the DSU for a Member to provide further status reports once that Member informed 
the DSB that it has implemented  the DSB recommendations. The widespread practice of Members – 
including the European Union as a responding party – confirmed this underst anding of Article 21.6. 
Through its actions, the European Union, once again, demonstrated that it did not truly believe that 
there was an "obligation" under Article 21.6 to submit a status report after a party had claimed 
compliance. The European Union had  simply invented a rule for this dispute, involving the United 
States, that it did not apply to other disputes involving other Members. Under the next Agenda item, 
the United States would raise another such dispute . 
2.4.  The DSB took note  of the statements . 
3  EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AND CERTAIN MEMBER STATES – MEASURES AFFECTING 
TRADE IN LARGE CIVIL AIRCRAFT : IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS 
ADOPTED BY THE DSB  
A. Statement by the United States  
3.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda at the request of the United States, and 
he invited the representative of the United States to speak . 
3.2.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States had placed this item on the 
agenda of the present meeting to highlight that the European Union had once again not provided 
Members with a status report concerning the dispute EC – Large Civil Aircraft (DS316). As Members 
were a ware, on 15 June 2021, the United States and the European Union had reached an 
"Understanding on a cooperative framework for Large Civil Aircraft". That agreement sought to forge 
a more cooperative future by suspending the tariffs related to this dispute f or five years, agreeing 
to clear principles that any financing for the production or development of large civil aircraft would 
be on market terms, and committing to joint collaboration to address non -market practices in this 
sector. Those efforts would hel p the US and EU companies and workers compete fairly, and the 
United States welcomed the collaboration with its European partners. As part of this significant effort 
to enhance cooperation, the United States intended to discuss its concerns relating to out standing 
EU support measures with the European Union bilaterally. The United States was therefore 
disappointed to again see the European Union inscribe the preceding agenda item for DS217, and 
call for a US status report, while not submitting an EU status report for DS316. The United States 
had put this item on the agenda as an opportunity for the European Union to explain its contradictory 
approach to the application of Article 21.6 of the DSU. In both disputes, the responding party had 
claimed that it had  implemented the DSB recommendation. In both disputes, the complaining party 
did not agree with that claim. But the European Union persisted in calling for a status report and 
agenda item for DS217 – where it was the complaining party – while not providing  such a report to 
the DSB in DS316 – where it was the responding party. The US position on status reports had been 
consistent across disputes: under Article 21.6 of the DSU, once a responding Member announced to 
the DSB that it had complied, there was no f urther "progress" on which it could report, and therefore 
no further obligation to provide a status report. As noted under the previous item, the United States 
considered this understanding to be based on the text of the DSU and reflected in every respondi ng WT/DSB/M/45 5 
- 8 - 
  Member's behaviour in other WTO disputes – including the EU's own behaviour. The United States 
would continue to engage bilaterally with the European Union on the tension created by the EU's 
position under these two items. The United States wished to re inforce their more cooperative 
relationship and focus their attention on bilateral challenges and opportunities .  
3.3.  The representative of the European Union  said that the European Union also  welcome d the fact 
that the parties ha d reached an Understanding on a Cooperative Framework for Large Civil Aircraft 
that allowed the parties to suspend their respective retaliation measures for five years.  In relation 
to the U S criticism of the European Union for not submitting a status report in the Airbus dispute,  
the European Union  noted, again , that, in the Airbus case, the European Union had notified a new 
set of compliance measures to the DSB.  That new set of compliance measures was subject to an 
assessment by a compliance panel and that panel report had been  issued on 2  December 2019. As 
noted in  its statement at the December 2020 meeting of the DSB, the E uropean Union  was of the 
view that sign ificant aspects of the compliance panel report c ould not be regarded as legally correct 
and were very problematic from a systemic perspective when it c ame to assessing compliance with 
the subsidy disciplines of the WTO Agreements. In order to have th ose legal errors corrected, the 
European Union  had filed an appeal against the compliance panel 's report on 6 December 2019.  
Whether or not the matter was "resolved " in the sense of Article 21.6 was the very subject matter 
of that ongoing litigation. The defendi ng party was not required to submit "status reports " to the 
DSB in th ose circumstances.  The E uropean Union  hoped that the Understanding on a Cooperative 
Framework for Large Civil Aircraft w ould allow the parties to resolve their disagreement also in 
relation to the provision of status reports to the DSB in the Airbus case.  
3.4.  The DSB took note  of the statements . 
4  CHINA – TARIFF RATE QUOTAS FOR CERTAIN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS  
A. Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by China: Request for the establishment of a panel  
(WT/DS517/20)  
4.1.  The Chairman  recalled that the DSB had considered this matter at its meeting on 2 6 July 2021 
and had agreed to revert to it should a requesting Member wish to do so. He then drew attention to 
the communication from China contained in document WT/D S517/20 and invited the representative 
of China  to speak.  
4.2.  The representative of China  said that o n 15 July 2021, China had  submitted its request for the 
establishment of a compliance panel in "China – Tariff Rate Quotas for Ce rtain Agricultural Products " 
(DS517), pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. At the DSB meeting of 26 July 2021, China  had 
clarified the background and reason for this request. To recall, as the original respondent, China had 
been reluctant to take this unus ual action.  China did so in light of the U S failure to initiate compliance 
proceedings under Article 21.5 of the DSU to review China's implementation of the recommendations 
and rulings of the DSB in this dispute. As set out  in its status report to the DSB of 17 February 2020, 
and as detailed in its  request for the establishment of a compliance panel, China ha d fully 
implemented the recommendations and rulings of the DSB concerning the administration of its TRQs 
for wheat, corn, and rice.  Nevertheless, on 15 July 2021, the United States proceeded wit h filing a 
request under Article 22.2 of the DSU requesting authorization to suspend concessions or other 
obligations with respect to China in an amount to be determined via a formula "that relates to the 
value of the unfilled portion of any tariff -rate qu ota (TRQ) for wheat, rice, or corn, as set out in 
China's WTO Schedule. " The United States ha d failed to specify on what basis it consider ed China's 
implementation to fall short of full compliance.  The United States ha d further refused to engage with 
China  on reaching a sequencing agreement,  as was customary practice in dispute settlement, and 
the "logical way forward " to resolve any disagreement between the parties regarding China's 
compliance measures. China was deeply concerned by the systemic  implicatio ns of the U S approach. 
In light of the U S refusal to engage with China to resolve any disagreement regarding China's 
implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings in the usual manner, China ha d been 
forced to take the unusual step of submitting its request. The representative of China  emphasize d 
that the unusual procedural posture of this request d id not shift the burden of proof.  It remain ed 
the U S burden to establish the WTO -inconsistency of China's compliance measures.  China strongly 
believe d that the compliance panel w ould confirm China's full compliance.  WT/DSB/M/45 5 
- 9 - 
  4.3.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States was not in a position  to 
agree with China that it had come into compliance with the DSB recommendations in this dispute. 
To recall, the DSB had found that China failed to administer its wheat, rice, and corn TRQs on a 
transparent, predictable, and fair basis, using clearly spe cified requirements and administrative 
procedures, and in a manner that would not inhibit the filling of each TRQ under China's Protocol of 
Accession, to the extent that it incorporated Paragraph 116 of the Report of the Working Party on 
the Accession of C hina. The United States had reserved its right to suspend concessions under 
Article  22.6 of the DSU, and the matter had been referred to arbitration. The parties had paused 
that arbitration. The United States understood that China did not seek further liti gation but had 
requested a panel to preserve its rights under Article 21.5 of the DSU. The United States was willing 
to work together with China to reach a resolution to this dispute. In its statement, China stated that 
the United States had failed to spec ify on what basis China's implementation fell short of compliance. 
The United States was under no obligation to present claims and arguments under this agenda item. 
The United States had engaged bilaterally with China on these issues on a regular and ongoi ng basis, 
and would continue to do so. For the purpose of the present meeting, the United States noted the 
lack of transparency in China's system, which highlighted the underlying challenge to the United 
States and other WTO Members of understanding China' s administration of basic import laws and 
regulations. Beyond that, the United States simply noted that, including because of China's lack of 
transparency, the TRQ measures notified by China in February 2020 and subsequent TRQ measures 
published in 2021 di d not themselves demonstrate that China presently administered its wheat, rice, 
and corn TRQs on a transparent, predictable, and fair basis, using clearly specified requirements and 
administrative procedures, and in a manner that would not inhibit the fill ing of each TRQ. Indeed, 
several of the panel's findings had been based on the discrepancy between what China's legal 
instruments stated would  be done, and what China asserted – during the course of the litigation – 
was in fact  done in practice . 
4.4.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed , pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU, to refer 
to the original Panel the matter raised by China in document WT/DS517/20. The panel w ould have 
standard terms of reference.  
4.5.  The representatives of Australia , Brazil , Canada , the European Union , Guatemala , India, Japan , 
the Russian Federation , Chinese Taipei  and the United Kingdom  reserved their third -party rights to 
participate in the Panel's proceedings . 
5  PANAMA – MEASURES CONCERNING THE IMPORTATION OF CERTAIN PRODUCTS FROM 
COSTA RICA  
A. Request for the establishment of a panel by Costa Rica (WT/DS599/4)  
5.1.  The Chairman  drew attention to the communication from Costa Rica contained in document 
WT/DS599/4 and he invited the representative of Costa Rica to speak.  
5.2.  The representative of Costa Rica  said that  historically speaking,  Costa Rica ha d always placed 
its trust in the multilateral trading system because this system  allowed  Members to abide by clear, 
predictable , and transparent rules . Therefore, Costa Rica had been compliant with all its 
commitments as a Member of the WTO . This mean t that Costa Rica could have recourse to the 
dispute settlement mechanism when it deemed that there ha d been a failure to comply with the 
established rules. This was a fundamental pillar of the WTO . It was absolutely necessary so that all 
Members and parties c ould reach balanced outcomes when disputes ar ose regarding the 
implementation of their WTO commitments. As neighbouring countries, Costa Rica and Panama were 
strategic allies. They share d common history and interests . Likewise, they both  aspire d to economic 
integration and enhancing trade between their countries as a source of development and wellbeing. 
Even among countries sharing the same goals who have enjoyed long and prosperous trade 
relations, disputes m ight arise requiring  impartial views . For this reason , Costa Rica had deemed it 
appropriate to include this Agenda item  and request the establishment of a panel to settle this 
dispute . Costa Rica wished to str ess that it acknowledge d the Panamanian authorities ' willingness to 
proceed to constructive dialogue and a quest for solutions during the consultation phase , and a 
series of rapprochement s that ha d enabled them to exchange  information and viewpoints. 
Never theless, the lack of a satisfactory solution after months of consultations prompted  Costa Rica  
to take this next step.  WT/DSB/M/45 5 
- 10 - 
  5.3.  Costa Rica said that o ver the past two years, Panama ha d implemented a series of measures, 
the result of which ha d been to ban Costa Rican imports of products such as plantain, banana, 
pineapple and strawberry . All these products  had been exported to Panama for decades. Costa Rica  
felt that the decision to ban their entry lack ed any scientific evidence, because there ha d been no 
change in the national phytosanitary situation that would imply that there were any risks. Panama 
had withdrawn the ability of certain Costa Rican establishments to continue to export de spite 
repeated requests to do so , and currently they found themselves  in the midst of the COVID -19 
worldwide crisis. Once again, there had been no changes in the phytosanitary status nor any increase 
in associated risks for Costa Rican  products , yet Panama 's limitations  on Costa Rican exports  had 
affected milk products, beef products, pork, cured beef, pork, poultry, aquatic animal food, pet food, 
and so on since June last year.  
5.4.  The concerns resulting from th ose export restrictions on Costa Rican products ha d led Costa 
Rica to present the issue in itially  at the SPS and Agriculture Committees and also before the CTG . 
Yet the restrictions ha d not been lifted. For th at reason , in January 2021,  Costa Rica  had decided to 
hold consultations with Panama i n accordance  with Articles 1 and 4 of the DSU, as well  as Article 19  
of the Agriculture Agreement , Article 11 of the SPS Agreement , and Article XXII of the GATT 1994. 
The consultations took place on 8 February 2021,  but it was not possible to reach a joint  outcome 
so as to settle th is dispute. In addition , and in parallel with the request for consultations, Costa Rica 
had sought to establish dialogue with the Panamanian authorities to understand their reasoning and 
find mutually satisfactory solutions. Howe ver, it was not successful in reaching a common 
understanding that would allow reopening the Panamanian market to Costa Rica's  products, despite 
the fact that Costa Rica n firms compl ied with all applicable regulations to export and also compl ied 
with the h ighest possible international SPS standards. Given that there ha d been no change in Costa 
Rica's  phytosanitary situation  and that  the Panamanian authorities continue d to remain silent in 
terms of scientific evidence or any reason for applying these measures , which were counter to  its 
international trade commitments , Costa Rica considered  that Panama's measures were inconsistent 
with its obligations under  the SPS Agreem ent, the Agriculture Agreement , and the GATT 1994. In 
light of all this, and in view of the economic losses experienced by  Costa Rican  firms because of 
these unjustified measures preventing the entry of their products into the Panamanian market, Costa 
Rica was requesting that a panel be established in accordance  with Article s 4.7 and 6 of the DSU, 
Article 19 of the Agriculture Agreement, Article 11.1 of the SPS Agreement and Article XXIII of the 
GATT 1994.  
5.5.  The representative of Panama  said that Panama regre tted that, despite its openness to dialogue 
and the hard work carried out by the competent authorities to ensure that their countries maintain ed 
a flow of trade in agricultural products that guarantee d adequate protection levels for both countries' 
phytosanitary resources, Costa Rica ha d taken this decision. However, Panama maintain ed its 
readiness to reach a solution that  would be  satisfactory to both countries in order to end this trade 
dispute . If th is dispute w ere to be submitted to the dispute settlement system  it would require both 
countries  to invest a considerable amount of time and resources . Therefore , Panama objected to  
Costa Rica's panel request , as set out in document  WT/DS599 /4. 
5.6.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter should a requesting 
Member wish to do so.  
6  CHINA – ANTI -DUMPING MEASURES ON STAINLESS STEEL PRODUCTS FROM JAPAN  
A. Request for the establishment of a panel by Japan (WT/DS601/2)  
6.1.  The Chairman  drew attention to the communication from Japan contained in document 
WT/DS601/2 and he invited the representative of Japan to speak.  
6.2.  The representative of Japan  said that t his case concern ed China 's measures imposing 
anti-dumping duties on imports of stainless  steel products from Japan.  Japan consider ed China 's 
measures to be inconsistent with its obligations under the GATT 1994 and the A nti-Dumping  
Agreement, as explained in Japan 's panel request.  First, Japan was of the v iew that, amongst other  
things, China 's price effect analysis was flawed because China treated three different products, 
namely, slabs, coils , and plates, as a single product, and hence did not properly analyse the effect 
of the subject imports on domestic  prices. Such price effect analysis was inconsistent with 
Articles  3.1 and 3.2 of the A nti-Dumping  Agreement. Second, China cumulatively assessed the WT/DSB/M/45 5 
- 11 - 
  impact of the imports from four WTO Members, namely Japan, the European Union, Korea, and 
Indonesia, that were not in a competitive relationship with each other. Such cumulative assessment 
was inconsistent with Articles 3.1 and 3.3 of the A nti-Dumping  Agreement. Third, Japan believe d 
that China's assessment was insufficient to demonstrate the causal relationsh ip between  the subject 
imports and  the injury to the domestic industry, which was inconsistent with its obligations under 
Articles  3.1 and 3.5 of the A nti-Dumping  Agreement. Furthermore, Japan considered that China had 
failed to comply with several obligat ions set forth in Articles 3.4, 4.1, 6.5, 6.5.1, 6.9, 12.2, and 
12.2.2 of the A nti-Dumping  Agreement.  Notwithstanding Japan's repeated expression of its concern 
regarding  China 's measure s on numerous occasions , for an extended period of time, China continue d 
to impose the measures. Therefore, Japan had requested consultations under the WTO Agreement 
on 11 June 2021 . Those consultations had been held  on 19 July 2021, with a view to reaching a 
mutually satisfactory solution. However, it was regrettable  that the parties had been  unable to 
resolve the ir differences through th ose consultations. Japan,  therefore , reques ted, pursuant to 
Article 6 of the DSU, that a panel be established to examine th is matter , as set out in its panel 
request , with standard te rms of reference , in accordance with Article 7.1 of the DSU.  
6.3.  The representative of China  said that China regret ted that Japan had decided to request the 
establishment of a panel in this dispute. China was  not in a position at the present meeting  to support 
such request. China maintain ed its domestic anti -dumping regime in line with relevant WTO rules. 
Specifically, in this dispute, the Chinese Investigating Authority , by adhering to its legal mandate , 
conducted a transparent and fair investigatio n in relation to the imports concerned from Japan. It 
finally determined the existence of dumping and found that those trade distortions had caused 
material injury to the domestic industry. As a necessary remedial step, certain anti -dumping 
measures ha d been duly imposed by the Chinese Investigating Authority.  While China was confident 
of its measures ' WTO-consistency, it had  engaged with Japan in good faith , both during and after 
the consultation s, with the view to solving this dispute in an amicable way. China was  willing to 
continue to do so through appropriate channels. Given the overall circumstance s, China believe d it 
was premature to establish a panel in this dispute.  
6.4.  The representative of Japan  said that Japan t ook note of China's statement and appre ciated 
China's engagement in consultations thus far to seek a mutually satisfactory solution. However, 
Japan wished to highlight that since Japan and China had been unable to reach  such a solution 
despite various consultations for a long period of time . Japan had request ed the establishment of a 
panel in accordance with  WTO rules. Japan recogni zed, pursuant to Article 3.7 of the DSU, that the 
aim of the dispute settlement mechanism was to secure a positive solution to a dispute. Japan thus 
remain ed available to find, at any time, a mutually agreed solution that would eliminat e the 
measures at issue.  
6.5.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter should a reques ting 
Member wish to do so.  
7  STATEMENT BY TUNISIA REGARDING THE PANEL REPORT IN THE DISPUTE: 
"MOROCCO  – DEFINITIVE ANTI -DUMPING MEASURES ON SCHOOL EXERCISE BOOKS 
FROM TUNISIA " 
7.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda at the request of Tunisia, and he invited 
the representative of Tunisia to speak . 
7.2.  The representative of Tunisia  thanked the members of the panel who had served on  this dispute 
for their flexibility in holding virtual and hybrid meetings. Tunisia  also wished to thank the members 
of the WTO Secretariat for their availability and responsiveness, as well as their efforts to provide 
as normal conditions as possible for panel hearings  under  the present  circumstances due to the 
COVID -19 pandemic.  Tunisia considered it appropriate to make a statement at the present  meeting  
in order to take stock of  the situation , given the most recent  developments in this regard.  Tunisia 
recalled that o n 27 July 2021, the Panel had circulated its report to WTO Members, the conclusions 
of which confirmed the basis for Tunisia's claims under Articles 2.2, 2.2.2, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5 
and 5.3 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement.  The following day, Morocco had notified its decision to 
appeal under Article  16.4 of the DSU in a Notice of Appeal  circulated in document WT/DS578/5.  
Morocco did not, however, provide  an appellant's submission "on the same day as the date of the 
filing of the Notice of Appeal", contrary t o Rule 21(1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review.  
In response, Tunisia, which would have liked Morocco to comply with the conclusions of the Panel 
Report, was obliged to submit a letter on 16 August  2021, stating that it was not in a position to  WT/DSB/M/45 5 
- 12 - 
  respond to Morocco's arguments, as Morocco had not provided  its appellant's submission within the 
required time -frame.  Tunisia was entitled, pursuant to Article 16.4 of the DSU, to request the 
adoption of the Panel Report in this dispute in accordance wit h the negative consensus rule.  
Furthermore, in Tunisia's view , this right m ight be suspended should Morocco decide to appeal. 
In that case, the Panel Report shall be adopted after "completion of the appeal", as set out in 
Article  16.4 of the DSU. For th at reason, Tunisia was not requesting at the present meeting that the 
DSB adopt the Panel Report in this dispute.  However, the suspension of Tunisia's right to request 
the adoption of the Panel Report was not boundless. In particular, Article 17.5 of the DSU provide d 
for a general time -frame of 60 days for completion of the appeal, and the last sentence stated  that 
"[i]n no case" shall the appeal proceedings "exceed 90 days".  Therefore, and in light of Tunisia's  
reading of Article  17.5, the "completion of t he appeal" referred to in Article 16.4 c ould not exceed 
90 days from notification of the decision to appeal.  It follow ed, therefore, that the suspension of the 
right to request the adoption of the Panel Report had to  be lifted 91 days after the date of for mal 
notification of appeal. From that point forward, either party sh ould be entitled to request the adoption 
of the Panel Report in accordance with the negative consensus rule.  Morocco had  notified its decision 
to appeal on 28  July 2021, such that  the 91st day would fall  on 27 October 2021. Therefore, Tunisia 
would be able to  request that the DSB adopt the Panel Report at its meeting on 29  November 2021.  
Nevertheless, Tunisia, which ha d spared no effort in seeking the conclusion of this case, intend ed, 
before 29 November 2021, to exhaust all available means to resolve this dispute. In order to do so, 
Tunisia hoped that the Chair would agree to convene a meeting with the parties as soon as possible 
with a view to reaching an agreement under his leadership, ei ther on the merits of th e dispute or on 
an ad hoc appeal  procedure . Tunisia hop ed that his prompt involvement w ould be very useful in 
reaching common ground in this dispute.  
7.3.  The representative of the Russian Federation  said that  the Russian Federation wished  to refer 
to its previous statements made with regard to  the practice of appealing into the "void". The Russian 
Federation wished to reiterat e its disappointment with the fact that WTO Members continue d to file 
appeals, notwiths tanding the  critical state of the  Appellate Body, there by leaving th ose cases 
unresolved. The Russian Federation deeply regret ted that such actions threaten ed the continued 
effectiveness of the dispute settlement mechanism and inevitably undermine d confide nce in the 
WTO.  
7.4.  The representative of Canada  said that , since 11  December  2019, the Appellate Body ha d no 
longer operated in practice. Article 3.10 of the DSU provide d that, if a dispute ar ose, Members w ould 
engage in dispute settlement procedures in good faith in an effort to resolve the dispute. The 
Appellate Body's inability to assume its appellate review responsibilities ha d undermined the DSU 
process , but the obligation under  Article 3.10 to make good fa ith efforts to resolve the dispute was 
still valid. No Member should seek to derive an unfair advantage from the current impasse. In the 
context of specific disputes, solutions exist ed to emerge from the current impasse of the Appellate 
Body. In particular , the parties to the dispute m ight agree to use procedures such as those set out 
in Annex 1 of the Multi -Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA) to complete the appeal 
process. Canada consider ed that it was essential that all parties to the dis pute abide d by their 
good-faith commitment under Article 3.10 of the DSU by making every effort to find an acceptable 
solution. If they were unable to find such a solution, there was the possibility of them resorting to 
self-assistance measures, which in t urn would erode confidence in the rules -based system for 
governing international trade. No Member would benefit from this situation in the long term. A 
Member acting in good faith should find no consolation in benefiting from an unfair, short -term 
advantag e which it possesse d owing to the absence of an operational Appellate Body. Canada  
reiterate d its invitation to Morocco and Tunisia to consider joining the MPIA in order to safeguard 
the binding rules including the possibility of an appeal procedure in dis putes involving them and the 
other MPIA participants . 
7.5.  The representative of Morocco  thank ed Tunisia  for its statement. Morocco ha d taken note of 
Tunisia's statement and r ecalled  that following t he circulation of the Panel Report, Morocco ha d 
wished to continue bilateral consultations with Tunisia with a view to reaching an agreement given 
the situation of the Appellate Body , however unfortunately this had not  been possible. Morocco  
remain ed open to cont inue consultations  on this matter  with t he mediation of the Secretariat and 
the DSB Chair in order to reach an agreement or understanding on this matter  in the light of the 
paralysis of the Appellate Body. At the present meeting, Morocco wished to confirm its notice of 
appeal  and reserve d its right to respond to Tunisia's statement  at the next DSB meeting.  WT/DSB/M/45 5 
- 13 - 
  7.6.  The Chairman  said that t he DSB would  take note of the statements made and of Tunisia's 
request that the Chair of the DSB hold consultations with the parties to th is dispute  in order to find 
a mutually agreeable solution . He noted  that Morocco had stated that it  was open to such 
consultations . He said that he would contact the parties to this dispute regarding this matter as soon 
as possible.  
7.7.  The DSB took note  of the statements . 
8  APPELLATE BODY APPOINTMENTS : PROPOSAL BY AFGHANISTAN ; A NGOLA ; 
ARGENTINA ; AUSTRALIA ; BANGLADESH ; BENIN ; PLURINATIONAL STATE OF BOLIVIA ; 
BOTSWANA ; BRAZIL ; BURKINA FASO ; BURUNDI ; CABO VERDE ; CAMEROON ; CANADA ; 
CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC ; CHAD; CHILE ; CHINA ; COLOMBIA ; CONGO ; COSTA RICA ; 
CÔTE D'IVOIRE ; CUBA; DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO ; DJIBOUTI ; DOMINICAN 
REPUBLIC ; ECUADOR ; EGYPT ; EL SALVADOR ; ESWATINI ; THE EUROPEAN UNION ; GABON ; 
THE GAMBIA ; GHANA ; GUATEMALA ; GUINEA ; GUINEA BISSAU ; HONDURAS ; HONG KONG, 
CHINA ; ICELAND ; INDIA ; INDONESIA ; ISRAEL ; KAZAKHSTAN ; KENYA ; REPUBLIC OF 
KOREA ; LESOTHO ; LIECHTENSTEIN ; MADAGASCAR ; MALAWI ; MALAYSIA ; MALDIVES ; 
MALI; MAURITANIA ; MAURITIUS ; MEXICO ; REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA ; MOROCCO ; 
MOZAMBIQUE ; NAMIBIA ; NEPAL; NEW ZEALAND ; NICARAGUA ; NIGER ; NIGERIA ; NORTH 
MACEDONIA ; NORWAY ; PAKISTAN ; PANAMA ; PARAGUAY ; PERU; QATAR ; RUSSIAN 
FEDERATION ; RWANDA ; SENEGAL ; SEYCHELLES ; SIERRA LEONE ; SINGAPORE ; SOUTH 
AFRICA ; SWITZERLAND ; THE SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENG HU, 
KINMEN AND MATSU ; TANZANIA ; THAILAND ; TOGO; TUNISIA ; TURKEY ; UGANDA ; 
UKRAINE ; UNITED KINGDOM ; URUGUAY ; THE BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA ; 
VIET NAM ; ZAMBIA AND ZIMBABWE (WT/DSB/W/609/REV.1 9) 
8.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda of the present meeting at the request of 
Mexico, on behalf of a number of delegations. He then drew attention to the proposal contained in 
document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.19 and invited the representative of Mexico to speak . 
8.2.  The representative of Mexico , speaking on behalf of the co -sponsors of the joint proposal 
contained in document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.19, said that the delegations in question had agreed to 
submit the joint proposal, dated 7 December  2020, to launch the selec tion processes for the 
vacancies of the Appellate Body members. On behalf of those 121 Members, Mexico wished to state 
the following. The extensive number of Members submitting the joint proposal reflected a common 
concern with the current situation in the  Appellate Body that was seriously affecting the overall 
dispute settlement system, against the best interest of its Members. WTO Members had a 
responsibility to safeguard and preserve the Appellate Body, the dispute settlement system, and the 
multilateral  trading system. Thus, it was their duty to proceed, without further delay, with the 
launching of the selection processes for the Appellate Body members, as submitted to the DSB at 
the present meeting. The proposal sought to: (i) start seven selection proc esses (one process to 
replace Mr  Ricardo Ramírez -Hernández, whose second term had expired on 30 June 2017; a second 
process to fill the vacancy result ing from the resignation of Mr  Hyun Chong Kim with effect from 
1 August  2017; a third process to replace M r Peter Van den Bossche, whose second term had expired 
on 11 December 2017; a fourth process to replace Mr  Shree Baboo Chekitan Servansing, whose 
four-year term of office expired on 30 September  2018; a fifth process to replace Mr  Ujal Singh 
Bhatia, whose second term had expired on 10 December 2019; a sixth process to replace Mr  Thomas 
Graham whose second term had expired on 10 December 2019; and a seventh selection process to 
replace Ms  Hong Zhao, whose first four -year term of office had expired on 30  November 2020); 
(ii) to establish a Selection Committee; (iii) to set a deadline of 30 days for the submission of 
candidacies; and (iv) to request that the Selection Committee issue its recommendation within 
60 days after the deadline for nominations of candid ates. The proponents were flexible in the 
determination of the deadlines for the selection processes, but Members should consider the urgency 
of the situation. The proponents continued to urge all Members to support this proposal in the 
interest of the dis pute settlement and multilateral trading systems . 
8.3.  The representative of the European Union  said that t he European Union wished to refer to its 
previous statements made on this matter.  Since 11 December 2019, the WTO no longer guarantee d 
access to a binding, two -tier, independent and impartial resolution of trade disputes. A fully 
functioning WTO dispute settlement system was critical for a rules -based multilateral trading system. 
This was why the most urgent area of WTO reform involve d finding an agreed basis to restore such 
a system and proceeding to the appointment of the members of the Appellate Body. This task should WT/DSB/M/45 5 
- 14 - 
  be addressed as a priority. As the European Union had consistently  noted, WTO Members ha d a 
shared responsibility to resolve this issue as soon as possible, and to fill the outstanding vacancies 
as required by Article 17.2 of the DSU. The E uropean Union  agree d that meaningful reform s were 
needed in order to achieve th at objective. The E uropean Union therefore renew ed its call on all WTO 
Members to engage in a constructive discussion as soon as possible in order to restore a fully 
functioning WTO dispute settlement system. The European Union  thank ed all Members that ha d 
co-sponsored the proposal to launch the AB appointment processes.  
8.4.  The representative of Nigeria , speaking on behalf of the African Group , said that the Group  
wished to join other  delegations who had supported the statement made by Mexico and  referred to 
its previous statements made on this matter at previous DSB meetings.  
8.5.  The representative of Brazil  said that  Brazil thank ed Mexico for the introduction  of the AB 
proposal on behalf of the co -sponsors. Brazil wished to refer to its previous statements  made on this 
matter  and s tood ready , as it ha d always been , to engage with all Members in order to find a  
long-lasting solution to th e AB impasse.  
8.6.  The representative of Canada  said that Canada support ed Mexico's statement and share d the 
concerns expressed b y other Members. Canada  invite d those WTO Members who ha d not yet 
endorsed the proposal to consider joining the 121 Members who were calling for the selection process 
to be launched. The critical mass of WTO Members who support ed this proposal was a clear testimony 
to the importance they all attach ed to a fully operational Appellate Body as an integral part of the 
dispute settlement system. The fact that the Appellate Body c ould not hear new appeals was very 
worrying. Canada reite rated its interest in contributing to discussions aimed at finding solutions 
regarding the functioning of the Appellate Body. Canada  would appreciate it if the United States 
would commit to th ose discussions and invite d it to do so. It remain ed Canada's  priority to find a 
lasting multilateral solution for all Members, including the  United States. Meanwhile, Canada and 
24 other WTO Members ha d endorsed the Multi -Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement 
(MPIA) as a contingency measure that s ought  to safeg uard their rights to binding dispute settlement 
rules including the possibility of appeal in disputes among themselves. The MPIA was open to all 
WTO Members. Canada invite d all WTO Members to consider joining the MPIA in order to safeguard 
their dispute se ttlement rights to the greatest extent possible until Members could  collectively find 
a permanent solution to the impasse in the Appellate Body. Canada was available to discuss the 
MPIA with any interested Member . 
8.7.  The representative of Japan  said that Japan wished to refer to its statements made at previous 
DSB meetings and support ed the AB proposal. Japan share d a sense of urgency for reform of the 
dispute settlement system. As Japan ha d consistently  stated , Japan consider ed it the utmost priority 
to achieve an expeditious reform that w ould contribute to a long -lasting solution to the structural 
and functional problems of the dispute settlement system.  For such a reform, every WTO Member, 
as the owner of the system, had to  take seriously  the current  situation where the Appellate Body 
virtually ceased its operation a long time ago and , meanwhile, a number of cases ha d been appealed 
into the void. Furthermore, Japan consider ed it essential that every WTO Member restart ed 
constru ctive discussions on the reform of the dispute settlement system, including on how to address 
the concerns surrounding the Appellate Body.  Japan spare d no efforts to collaborate with all WTO 
Members to that end.   
8.8.  The representative of China  said that China  support ed the statement made  by Mexico on behalf 
of 121 co -sponsors and call ed upon other  Members to join th e proposal. China  referred to its previous 
statements on this urgent matter and reiterate d its firm commitment to an independent and 
impartial two -tier dispute settlement system.  The paralysis of the Appellate Body ha d posed a serious 
challenge to the multilateral trading system, and more than a dozen cases, including the on e referred 
to at the pre sent meeting, ha d been appealed into the void. This severe situation not only deprive d 
Members  of their right to defend their interests, but also jeopardize d the security and predictability 
of this rules -based organization. Therefore, China  called upon all  Members to prioritize the restoring 
of the Appellate Body function, and to engage constructively in the solution -based consultation s with 
a view to breaking the selection impasse at the earliest  possible  date. China also wished to echo the 
statements made  by the European Union and Canada and call ed upon Members to join the MPIA as 
a contingent arrangement during the AB impasse.  WT/DSB/M/45 5 
- 15 - 
  8.9.  The representative of Indonesia  said that Indonesia wishe d to refer to its previous  statements 
made at previous DSB meetings with regard to this important  Agenda item. Indonesia continue d to 
urge all Members to accord their serious attention, willingness and commitment for the immediate 
appointment of the Appellate Body members.   
8.10.  The representative of the United Kingdom  said that t he United Kingdom continue d to support 
this Agenda item to launch the selection process for appointments to the Appellate Body, and 
referred to its previous statements on this issue.  The dispute settlement system was a central pill ar 
of the rules based multilateral trading system.  Members had to  restore a fully effective and binding 
system, to ensure that the rules that they had  negotiated were enforceable, preserving the rights 
and obligations of Members. The United Kingdom  would continue to engage with all Members to find 
common ground on this issue.  The situation remain ed critical, and the United Kingdom  stood ready 
to work together to find a long -term solution.  
8.11.   The representative of Korea  said that Korea reiterate d its support for the joint AB proposal 
and refe rred to its previous statements made on this issue.  The WTO dispute settlement system ha d 
been a central element in providing security and predictability to the multilateral trading system . 
Korea, as a firm su pporter of the multilateral trading system, was ready to engage constructively in 
relevant discussions to find a solution to enhance the functioning of the dispute settlement system 
with a view to accommodating the needs of WTO Members.  Also, Korea wished  to point out that 
Members should strive for a work plan to reform the dispute settlement system by MC12. Korea 
stood ready to work together with other Members and w ould continue to play an active and 
constructive part in relevant discussions with a view to  reaching a tangible outcome.  
8.12.  The representative of Thailand  said that Thailand wished  to join others in supporting the 
statement made by Mexico on behalf of the 121 co -sponsors. Thailand refer red to its previous 
statements delivered at the DSB meetings under  this Agenda item and renew ed its call on all 
Members to continue their constructive efforts in order to revive the fully functioning dispute 
settlement system.  
8.13.  The representative of the Russian Federation  said that t he Russian Federation wished  to thank 
Mexico for its leadership and the other co -sponsors for the continued work on this issue. To avoid 
any repetition , the Russian Federation  referred to its statements made at previous DSB meetings 
and reiterate d its strong support for the proposal to immediately launch  the AB appointment 
processes. Russia urge d Members to prioritize restoring the proper operation of the dispute 
settlement system and renew ed its readiness to cooperate and engage constructively in any 
discussions on the matter.  
8.14.  The represe ntative of Turkey  said that Turkey thank ed Mexico for placing  this item on the 
Agenda  of the present meeting . As a co -sponsor of this proposal, Turkey  believe d that a functio nal 
Appellate Body was at the core of a well-functioning dispute settlement system. Therefore, it was 
important to safeguard the two -stage character and the binding nature of the dispute settlement 
system. In that respect, Turkey  referred to its previous statements made on this matter and recall ed 
the urgent need to start the AB selection processes for the vacancies of the Appellate Body , in 
accordance with Article 17.2 of the DSU. To th at end, Turkey was committed to resolve th is issue as 
soon as possible and was ready to engage with Members to launc h the AB selection process es. 
8.15.  The representative of Norway  said that Norway refer red to its previous  statements made 
under this Agenda item. Norway fully support ed the joint AB proposal presented by Mexico and 
co-sponsored by 121 Members. Norway  again underline d the urgent need to start the selection 
processes in order to fill the vacancies in the Appellate Body, in accordance with the DSU  provisions.  
In Norway's view, the top priority  should be  to restore the full y functioning  dispute settlement 
mechanism, and Norway continue d to support all efforts in th at regard. Norway  reconfirm ed its 
readiness to engage constructively in the discussions that need ed to be initiated as soon as possible.  
8.16.  The representative of India said that India refer red to its previous statements made on this 
matter and reiterate d its serious concerns regarding the DSB's inability to comply with its legal 
obligation under Article 17.2 of the DSU to appoint Appellate Body members to fill the vacancies. 
India call ed on all Members to engage constructively to immediately start the AB selection process 
as a priority.  WT/DSB/M/45 5 
- 16 - 
  8.17.  The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that Hong Kong, China support ed Mexico's 
statement and wished  to join Mexico and other Members who reiterated  the importance o f resolving 
the Appellate Body impasse and restor ing the full y functioning  dispute settlement system. Hong 
Kong, China was committed to any constructive engagement for discussions o n any necessary 
reform to make this happen.  
8.18.  The representative of Argentina  said that Argentina w ished  to thank Mexico and the previous 
speakers for their statements. Argentina supported  the joint statement and wished to refer to its 
previous statements regarding  Argentina's  concern about  the undue delay in launching the selection 
process es for new Appellate Body members , which affected the functioning of the Organization.  
Therefore , Argentina invite d all Members to explore all possible alternatives to find a structural and 
satisfactory so lution to the current situation.  
8.19.  The representative of New Zealand  said that New Zealand reiterate d its support for the 
co-sponsored proposal and wished to refer to its previous statements  made on this matter. New 
Zealand  continue d to urge all Members to e ngage, constructively, on the issues with a view to 
addressing this situation as a priority. Now was the time to refocus Members'  collective effort s on 
finding a solution that work ed for all Members.  
8.20.  The representative of Iceland  said that Iceland fully su pport ed the statement  made  by Mexico. 
As a small nation and an open economy, Iceland was a strong supporter of the global framework 
governing international trade which was grounded in the rule of law. Iceland viewed t he WTO 's 
two-step dispute settlement mechanism as playing a central role in providing predictability within 
that system and securing a fair playing field for all participating Members. Th e organizatio n's 
long-time lack of progress in filling the vacancies of the Appell ate Body was therefore a source of 
great concern for Iceland. Iceland wished  to use this opportunity to call on all Members to engage 
in a constructive manner to solve th e AB impasse and to do so without further delay.  
8.21.  The representative of Switzerland  said that Switzerland wished to refer to its statements made 
on this matter at previous DSB meetings. A fully functional appeals stage was in everyone's interest, 
and Switzerland  hoped that fresh impetus c ould be achieved  rapidly to resolve the impasse that 
Members had  been facing for too long. Switzerland remain ed ready to work towards th at objective, 
and strongly encourage d all Members to engage constructively in seeking concrete solutions to 
unlock the current situation.  
8.22.  The representative of Singapore  said that  Singapore thank ed Mexico for its statement, which 
Singapore  strongly support ed. Singapore  reiterate d its previous statements on this matter and urge d 
all Members to embark on the Appellate Body selection process immediately. Singapore looked 
forward to engaging constructively in discussions with all Members, including the United States, to 
find a lasting multilateral solution.  
8.23.  The representative of the United States  said that t he United States was not in a position to 
support the proposed decision . The United States continue d to have systemic concerns with the 
Appellate Body.  As Members kn ew, the United States ha d raised and explained its systemic concerns 
for more than 16 years and across multiple US Administrations. The United States believe d that 
Members had to  undertake fundamental reform if the system was to remain viable and credible. The 
dispute settlement system c ould and should better support the WTO 's negotiating and monitoring 
functions. The United States  looked forward to further discuss ions with Members on those concerns 
and to constructive engagement with Members at the appropriate time.  
8.24.  The representative of Mexico , speaking on behalf of the 121 co -sponsors, regretted that for 
the forty -fifth occasion, Members had still not been able t o start the selection processes for the 
vacancies in the Appellate Body, and had thus continuously failed to fulfil their dut ies as Members 
of the WTO . The fact that a Member may have had concerns about certain aspects of the functioning 
of the Appellate Body could not serve as a pretext to impair and disrupt the work of the DSB  and 
dispute settlement in general. There was no legal justification for the  current bloc king of the AB 
selection processes, which was causing concrete nullification and impairment for many Members. As 
Article  17.2 of the DSU clearly stated, "vacancies shall be filled as they arise ". No discussion should 
prevent the Appellate Body  from continuing to operate fully and Members shall comply with their 
obligation under the DSU to fill the vacancies. Mexico noted with deep concern that by failing to act WT/DSB/M/45 5 
- 17 - 
  at the present meeting, the Appellate Body would continue to be unable to perform it s functions 
against the best interest of all Members.  
8.25.  The representative of Mexico  said that f or over two years, 121 Members had been reques ting 
the inclusion of th e AB proposal  for its  approval by the DSB  and for Members to be able to preserve 
their right  to appeal , which was established in the DSU. Mexico wished to refer to its previous 
statements made  on this matter. Mexico continue d to be deeply concerned about this unprecedented 
situation whereby the Appellate Body was not able to function. All dispute s currently  underway were 
being affected because Members did  not have a two -stage dispute settlement mechanism that was 
fully operational , which jeopardize d the prompt adoption of reports by the DSB. Mexico  urged 
Members who ha d not yet done so to join the proposal. Mexico continue d to be prepared to work 
constructively to reach a real multilateral outcome  in this area.  
8.26.  The Chairman  thanked  all delegations for their statements.  He said that, a s in the past, the 
DSB w ould take no te of the statements expressing the respective positions  of Members , which w ould 
be reflected in the minutes of this meeting. As Members were  all aware, this matter require d a 
political engagement on the part of all WTO Members, and he hoped that Members w ould be able to 
find a solution  and common ground  on this matter as soon as possible. As Members recalled, the 
Chair of the General Council (GC) had briefly reported on his consultations regarding the issue of 
restoration of a fully functional dispute sett lement system at the July General Council meeting . The 
GC Chair's  report was circulated in document JOB/GC/268. He said that he would take up this matter 
with the GC Chair in the coming days.  He also said that his door was open to any delegation wishing 
to contact him directly on this matter.  
8.27.  The DSB took note  of the statements . 
__________