RESTRICTED  
  
WT/DSB/M/45 9 
22 February 2022 
(22-1273) Page: 1/16 
Dispute Settlement Body  
20 December 2021   
 
  
MINUTES OF MEETING  
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD  
ON 20 DECEMBER 20211 
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 , and 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 
could inform himself or the Secretariat  and that Agenda item would remain open until the delegation 
could take the floor. In the alternative, the item would remain open temporarily, the meeting would 
proceed to the next Agenda item, and the DSB would revert to the open item after the technical 
issue had been resolved. If a technical issue remained unresolved, the delegation had the option to 
send the statement to the Secretariat with the request that it be read out by the Secretariat on 
behalf of that delegation during the meeting so that the st atement could be reflected in the minutes 
of the meeting ; (ii) the Chairman  made a short statement regarding item  4 of the proposed Agenda 
of the 28  April 2021 DSB meeting pertaining to the DS574 dispute. He said that, a s Members 
recalled,  that matter had been removed from the proposed Agenda to allow time for the Chair 's 
consultations with each interested party regarding th at Agenda item. At the present meeting, he 
wished to inform delegations that he continue d to consult with each interested party on th is matter 
and that th ose consultations were ongoing ; and (iii) the Chairman  inform ed Members  that, under 
"Other Business ", in accordance with paragraph 5 of the 21  December 2020 Understanding between 
the Philippines and Thailand on the DS371 Facilitator -Assisted discussions contained in document 
WT/DS371/44, and subsequent report of the Facilitator contained in document WT/DS371/45, dated 
31 March 2021, Ambassador George Mina of Australia, the Facilitator in the DS371 dispute, w ould 
make a short report on progress in this dispute . 
 
The DSB took note  of the statements and adopted  the Agenda, as amended.   
 
 
Table of Contents  
1 SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY 
THE DSB  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................  3 
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  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  4 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products: Status report by the European Union ................................ ................................ ....... 4 
D. United States – Anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential 
washers from Korea: Status report by the United States  ................................ ..........................  5 
 
1 The proceedings of this meeting were held in a hybrid format.  WT/DSB/M/45 9 
- 2 - 
  E. United States – Certain methodologies and their application to anti -dumping 
proceedings involving China: Status report by the United States  ................................ ..............  5 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, anim als and animal products: 
Status  report by Indonesia  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 6 
2 UNITED STATES – CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT OF 2000: 
IMPLEMENTA TION 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 
RECOMME NDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB  ................................ ................................ .... 7 
A. Statement by the United States  ................................ ................................ ........................  7 
4 RUSSIAN FEDERATION – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING DOMESTIC AND 
FOREIGN PRODUCTS AND SERVICES  ................................ ................................ ................  7 
A. Request for the establishment of a panel by the European Union ................................ ...........  7 
5 DOMINICAN REPUBLIC – ANTI DUMPING MEASURES ON CORRUGATED STEEL 
BARS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................  8 
A. Request for the establishment of a panel by Costa Rica  ................................ ........................  8 
6 STATEMENT BY TUNISIA REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE CONSULTATIONS 
CONCERNING THE DISPUTE: "MO ROCCO  – DEFINITIVE ANTI DUMPING 
MEASURES ON SCHOOL EXERCISE BOOKS FROM TUNISIA"  (DS578)  ...............................  9 
7 UNITED STATES – ANTI -DUMPING AND COUNTER VAILING DUTIES ON RIPE 
OLIVES FROM SPAIN  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 10 
A. Report of the Panel ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  10 
8 APPELLATE BODY APPOINTMENTS: PROPOSAL BY AFGHANISTAN; ANGOLA; 
ARGENTINA; AUSTRALIA; BANGLADESH; BENIN; PLURINATIONAL STATE OF 
BOLIVIA; BOTSWANA; BRAZIL; BURKI NA FASO; BURUNDI; CABO VERDE; 
CAMBODIA; 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; MAURITAN IA; 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; SINGAP ORE; 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.20)  ................................ ....................  11 
9 REPORT BY THE FACILITATOR ON PROGRESS IN THE FACILITATOR -ASSISTED 
DISCUSSIONS IN THE DS371 DISPUTE  ................................ ................................ ..........  15 
 WT/DSB/M/45 9 
- 3 - 
   
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 22) 
 
B. United States – Section 110(5) of the U S Copyright Act : Status report by the United States 
(WT/DS160/24/A dd.197) 
 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech products : 
Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/A dd.160) 
 
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.44) 
 
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.36) 
 
F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultur al products, animals and animal products : Status report by 
Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/A dd.31 – WT/DS478/22/A dd.31) 
 
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  recall ed, 
Article  21.6 require d that: "Unless the DSB decides otherwise, the issue of implementation of the 
recommendations or rulings shall be placed on the Agenda of the DSB meeting after 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, the Chairman wished to  invite 
delegations to provide up -to-date information about their compliance efforts . The Cha irman  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 at each 
meeting on any issue that has already been fully  debated in the past and on which there appears to 
have been no change in Members ' positions already on record. " 
A. United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot -rolled steel products from 
Japan : Status report by the United States (WT/DS184/15/Add.2 22) 
1.2.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS184/15/Add.2 22, 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 the United States had provided a status report 
in this dispute on 9 December 2021, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. The United States 
had addressed the DSB's rec ommendations and rulings with respect to the calculation of 
anti-dumping margins in the hot -rolled steel anti -dumping duty investigation at issue. With respect 
to the recommendations of the DSB that had yet to be addressed, the US Administration would 
confer with the US Congress with respect to the appropriate statutory measures that would resolve 
this matter . 
1.4.  The representative of Japan  said that  Japan thank ed the United States for the most recent  
status  report and the statement made at the present meeting . Japan , once again , called on the 
United States to fully implement the DSB recommendations and rulings so as to resolve this matter.  
1.5.  The DSB took note of the statements and agree d to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . WT/DSB/M/45 9 
- 4 - 
  B. United States – Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act : Status report by the 
United  States (WT/DS160/24/Add.1 97) 
1.6.  The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS160/24/Add.19 7, which contained the 
status report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's recommendations 
in the case concerning Section 110(5) of the US Copyright Act . 
1.7.  The representative of the United States  said that t he United States had provided a status report 
in this dispute on 9 December 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 of this matter . 
1.8.  The representative of the European Union  said that the European Union thank ed the 
United  States for its status repor t and its statement at the present meeting . The European Union  
referred to its previous statements  and reiterated that it wished to resolve this case as soon as 
possible . 
1.9.  The DSB took note of the statements and agree d to revert to this matter at its next r egular 
meeting . 
C. European Communities – Measures affecting the approval and marketing of biotech 
products : Status report by the European Union (WT/DS291/37/Add.1 60) 
1.10.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS291/37/Add.1 60, 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 . 
1.11.   The representative of the European Union  said that t he European Union and the United  States 
had held a second meeting of the biotech dialogue earlier that month. The  European  Union  
consider ed that this dialogue was a useful forum to exchange information on biotech -related issues. 
During that meeting, the European Union  had provided detailed updates on several 
priority  applications, indicated by the United States . The updates show ed that, on average, 85% of 
the time from validation of the application dossier to adoption of the scientific opinion was used by 
the applicants. The  European Union said  that the United States frequently refer red to products that 
had successfully passed EFSA 's risk assessment, but not yet received final approval through 
comitology. The European Union wished  to point out that there were administrative procedures 
between the publication of EFSA 's favourable opinion and the comitology vote that had to be 
respect ed. Those  include d, among others, procedures related to transparency, such as a one -month 
public consultation. The European Union  failed to see how those  procedures could  be characterised 
as "undue delay ". During the second meeting of the biotech dialogue,  those  procedures and the 
corresponding timelines were explained to the United States. The European Union reiterated that it 
had acted in line with its WTO obligations  and recall ed that the EU approval system was not covered 
by the DSB 's recommendations an d rulings. To update the WTO Membership concerning the progress 
of the applications throughout the authorisation process, the European Union noted the following.  
Firstly, the written procedure on the vote on the draft decision renewing GM cotton GHB614 , which 
was presented at the online Standing Committee meeting of 22 November 2021 , resulted in 
"no opinion " and the draft decision would  be referred to the Appeal Committee. Secondly, the 
Standing  Committee meeting was held online on 17 December 2021. The Com mission had presented 
draft decisions authorising two GMOs: GM oilseed rape 73496 and GM cotton GHB811. The votes on 
those draft decisions were ongoing  by written procedures . 
1.12.   The representative of the United States  thanked the European  Union for its status report and 
its statement made at the present meeting. The United  States continued to engage with the 
European Union in good faith on these issues and had provided recommendations on several 
occasions as to how the European Union could address the undue  delays in its approval procedures. 
It was the understanding of the United States that there were still approximately eight (8) biotech 
products for which the EFSA had successfully completed a risk assessment, yet whic h had not 
received final approval through comitology. 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. The WT/DSB/M/45 9 
- 5 - 
  United States appreciated the European Union participating in the biannual EU -US Biotechnology 
Consultations held 9 December 2021, to discuss the approval process for biotechnology products . 
1.13.   The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next regular 
meeting . 
D. United States – Anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential 
washers from Korea : Status report by the United States (WT/DS464/17/Add. 44) 
1.14.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS464/17/Add. 44, which contained the 
status  report by the United States on progress in the implementation of the DSB 's recommendations 
in the case concerning anti -dumping and countervailing measures on large residential washers from 
Korea . 
1.15.   The representative of the United States  said that t he United States had provided a 
status  report in this dispute on 9 December 2021, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. 
On 6 May 2019, the US Department of Commerce published a no tice 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 (May 6, 2019)). With this action, 
the United States had completed implement ation of the DSB recommendations concerning those 
anti-dumping and countervailing duty orders. The United States would consult with interested parties 
on options to address the recommendations of the DSB relating to other measures challenged in this 
disput e.  
1.16.   The representative of Korea  said that Korea thank ed the United States for its status report 
and its statement made 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 " measure s in this 
dispute . 
1.17.   The representative of Canada  said that Canada wished to refer to statements made on this 
matter  at previous DSB meetings . 
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. 36) 
1.19.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS471/17/Add.3 6, 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 proceed ings 
involving China . 
1.20.   The representative of the United States  said that the United States had provided a status 
report in this dispute on 9 December 2021, in accordance with Article 21.6 of the DSU. As explained 
in that report, the United States would cons ult with interested parties on options to address the 
recommendations of the DSB .  
1.21.   The representative of China  said that China thank ed the United States for its most recent  
status  report. However, China was disappointed that  more than three years after the expiry of the 
reasonable period of time for implementation , the United States still fail ed to implement the 
adopted  rulings and recommendations in this dispute.  Prompt compliance was critical to the 
effectiveness and credib ility of the dispute settlement system , which was in the best interests of the 
entire Membership. China  urged the United States to meet its obligation in line with Article 21.1 of 
the DSU by bringing 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 9 
- 6 - 
  F. Indonesia – Importation of horticultural products, animals and animal products : Status 
report by Indonesia (WT/DS477/21/Add. 31 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 31) 
1.23.   The Chairman  drew attention to document WT/DS477/21/Add. 31 – WT/DS478/22/Add. 31, 
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 rulings of the DSB in these disputes. With regard to  measure 18, as reported 
at previous DSB meetings, Indonesia had removed all Articles in the relevant Laws that were found 
inconsistent  with WTO rules through the enactment of Law No.  11/2020 on Job Creation. 
With respect to measure s 1-17, Indonesia wished  to reassure that , significant adjustments in 
complying with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB, had been carried out through 
amendments of the relevant  MoA and MoT Regulations. Those adjustments included  the removal of 
disputed measures, inter alia : harvest period restriction, import realization requirements, 
six-months harvest requirement, and reference price. Indonesia was comm itted to engaging 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  said that the United States was continuing to review  
Indonesia's new laws and regulations in light of Indonesia's recent statements and status reports. 
The United State s had learned that, in the prior month, Indonesia's Constitutional Court had ruled 
that the Omnibus Law on Job Creation (No. 11/2020) was unconstitutional and had ordered the 
government to revise the law. The United States questioned how that ruling affecte d Indonesia's 
implementation of the DSB recommendation concerning measure 18. With respect to 
measures  1-17, the United States would still appreciate further clarity on which regulations presently 
comprised Indonesia's import licensing regimes and on any f orthcoming regulations that would affect 
the regimes. 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 wished to thank  Indonesia for its 
status  report, and ackn owledge d Indonesia 's commitment to comply fully with the DSB 's 
recommendations and rulings.  Both compliance deadlines had, however,  long since expired, and a 
number of measures remain ed non-compliant.  New Zealand continue d to review recent 
legislative  adjustments in order to assess what impact this would  have on Indonesia 's compliance, 
in particular with respect of measure 18.  New Zealand  underst ood that Indonesia was in the process 
implementing new regulations under Law No. 11/2020 on Job Creation, which would  impact this 
assessment.  This include d the recently -released Ministry of Trade Regulation 20/2021.  New Zealand  
sought  clarity on how the implementation of this r egulation would  amend Indonesia 's import 
licensing system.  New Zealand was  also interested in knowing what impact, if any, the recent 
constitutional  court ruling declaring the Job Creation Law unconstitutional would  have on the 
legislation associated with the DSB 's recommendations and rulings.  New Zealand invite d Indonesia 
to provide further details as soon as possible  and looked forward to further bilateral engagement to 
that end. 
1.27.   The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at i ts 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 and invited the representative of the European Union to speak . 
2.2.  The representative of the European Union  said that the European Union  wished to refer to its 
previous statements made under this Agenda item . WT/DSB/M/45 9 
- 7 - 
  2.3.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States took note of the 
European  Union's statement. In that regard, the United States wished to refer to its own prior 
statements made under this Agenda item regarding Article 21.6 of the DSU . 
2.4.  The DSB took note  of the statements . 
3  EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AND CERTAIN MEMBER STATES – MEASURES AFFECTING 
TRADE IN LARGE CIVIL AIRCRAFT : IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS 
ADOPTED BY THE DSB  
A. Statement by the United States  
3.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda at the request of the United States, and 
invited the representative of the United States to speak . 
3.2.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States referred  to its previous 
statements made under this Agenda item regarding Article 21.6 of the DSU. The United States 
wished to simply note at the present meeting that, as Members were aware, on 15 June 2021, 
the United  States and the European Union had reached an "Understanding on a cooperative 
framework for Large Civil Aircraft." The United States looked forward to engaging with its European 
partners to bring about a more level global playing field .  
3.3.  The representative of the European Union  said that the European Union  wished to refer to its 
previous statements made under this Agenda item . 
3.4.  The DSB took note  of the statements . 
4  RUSSIAN FEDERATION – CERTAIN MEASURES CONCERNING DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN 
PRODUCTS AND SERVICES  
A. Request for the establishment of a panel by the European Union (WT/DS60 4/2) 
4.1.  The Chairman  recalled that the DSB had considered this matter at its meeting on 
29 November  2021 and had agreed to revert to it , should a requesting Member wish to do so. He 
then drew attention to the communication from the European Union  contained in document 
WT/DS 604/2 and invited the re presentative  of the European Union  to speak.  
4.2.  The representative of the European Union  said that at  the 29 November  2021 DSB meeting , 
the European Union had requested the establishment of a panel in this dispute. The  European  Union 
wished to refer to its statement made at the November  DSB meeting . He recalled that  the Russian 
Federation had opposed the EU panel  request at that meeting.  At the present meeting , 
the European  Union  maintain ed its request for the establishment of a panel to examine  this dispute.  
4.3.  The representative of the Russian Federation  said that  the Russian Federation wished  to refer 
to its statement made at the  29 November 2021  DSB meeting. The Russian Federation said that it 
regret ted the EU decision to further pursue its request for the establishment of a panel in the  DS604  
dispute . The Russian Federation was confident tha t its measures fully compl ied with Russia 's WTO 
obligations. Despite the fact that the EU panel request was on the Agenda for the second time, t he 
Russian Federation  remain ed open to further consultations with Brussels on th is matter  with a view 
to seeking  a mutually agreed solution.  
4.4.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to establish a panel in accordance with the 
provisions of Article  6 of the DSU, with standard terms of reference.  
4.5.  The representatives of Australia , Brazil , Canada , China , Colombia , India, Japan , Korea , 
Switzerland , Ukraine  and the United States  reserved their third -party rights to participate in the 
Panel's proceedings.  WT/DSB/M/45 9 
- 8 - 
  5  DOMINICAN REPUBLIC – ANTI DUMPING MEASURES ON CORRUGATED STEEL BARS  
A. Request for the establishment of a panel by Costa Rica (WT/DS605/2)  
5.1.  The Chairman  recalled that the DSB had considered this matter at its meeting on 
29 November  2021 and had agreed to revert to it , should a requesting Member wish to do so. He 
then drew attention to the communication from Costa Rica  contained in document WT/DS 605/2 and 
invited the re presentative  of Costa Rica  to speak.  
5.2.  The representative of Costa Rica  said that  the proper functioning of the multilateral  trading 
system , which was open, transparent and rules -based , was fundament al for Costa Rica in order to 
achie ve its trade and investment policy objectives. For that reason, Costa Rica  was firmly committed 
to strengthening the system  and to acting in a manner consistent with the commitments undertaken 
under WTO Agreements. Part  of that related to  the possibility of  resorting  to the dispute  settlement 
mechanism , when necessary. Th e dispute settlement system was  a pillar and a very important 
element of this Organization  as well as  an important tool for Members to reach solutions, within the 
legal framework, to actions, which in their view  undermine d their rights and had affected  their trade 
interests.  With that in mind, Costa Rica had, once again , requested  that its panel request be placed 
on the Agenda of the present  meeting . This dispute concerned  the definitive anti -dumping duty 
imposed by the Dominican  Republic on imports of corrugated or deformed steel bars or rods for the 
reinforcement of concrete originating in Costa Rica. As stated at the 29  November  2021 DSB 
meeting , Costa Rica  consider ed that the measure  in question  was not compatible  with the 
Dominican  Republic's obligations under Article VI of the GATT 1994 and the Agreement on 
Implementation of Article VI of the GATT 199 4 ("Anti-Dumping Agreement "). Costa  Rica reiterate d 
that the investigation conducted prior to the application of the anti -dumping duty, initiated on 
30 July 2018 at the request of a Dominican producer, did not meet the minimum requirements of 
the Anti -Dump ing Agreement. This was because, following an investigation , which contained a 
number of shortcomings, the Regulatory Commission on Unfair Trade Practices and Safeguard 
Measures of the Dominican Republic had issued a final determination providing for the a pplication 
of definitive anti -dumping measures, despite the absence of dumping, injury to the domestic industry 
and causation.  Costa Rica said that , as it had  noted at the previous DSB meeting, Costa Rica had 
requested consultations with the Dominican Republic on 23 July 2021. The consultations between 
the two countries had taken place on 20 September  2021. However, the consultations had failed to 
settle  this dispute. Costa Rica thank ed the Dominican  Republic f or its willingness to respond to the 
questions and Costa Rica's requests for information  made  during the consultations . However , the 
serious concerns of Costa Rica about the investigation and the anti -dumping dut ies imposed still 
remain ed. At the present m eeting, Costa Rica reiterate d its request that a panel be established 
pursuant to Articles 4.7 and 6 of the DSU, Article  17.4 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement, and 
Article  XXIII of the GATT 1994, to examine this matter. Costa Rica also request ed that the pane l 
should have standard terms of reference , as provided for in Article 7.1 of the DSU.  
5.3.  The representative of the Dominican Republic  said that t he Dominican Republic regret ted Costa 
Rica's decision to request the establishment of a panel  for a second time. The Dominican Republic 
reiterated that it considered that  this request was premature because the parties had not exhausted 
all options  towards  reach ing an amicable solution. The Dominican Republic said that the challenged 
anti-dumping measure  had been  adopted following a detailed investigation and was consistent with 
the requirements of the Anti -Dumping Agreement . Therefore , if a panel were to be established in 
spite of the Do minican Republic's  willingness to reach an amicable solution , his country  was prepared 
to defend the legality of the measure at issue . The Dominican Republic said that the request to 
establish a panel did not seem  to meet the minimum requirements of Articl e 6.2 of the DSU  and 
reserve d the right to  have recourse to relevant procedu re in this regard at an appropriate time. 
Finally , the Dominican  Republic reiterate d its willingness  to continue working with Costa Rica to try 
to reach an amicable solution so as to avoid panel proceedings.  
5.4.  The DSB took note  of the statements and agreed  to establish a panel in accordance with the 
provisions of Article  6 of the DSU, with standard terms of reference.  
5.5.  The representatives of Canada , China , the European Union , India, Japan , 
the Russian  Federation , and the United States  reserved their third -party rights to participate in the 
Panel's proceedings.  WT/DSB/M/45 9 
- 9 - 
  6  STATEMENT BY TUNISIA  REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE CONSULTATIONS 
CONCERNING THE DISPUTE : "MOROCCO  – DEFINITIVE ANTI DUMPING MEASURES ON 
SCHOOL EXERCISE BOOKS FROM TUNISIA " (DS578)  
6.1.  The Chairman  said that this item was on the Agenda at the request of Tunisia , and he invited 
the representative of Tunisia  to speak . 
6.2.  The representative  of Tunisia  said that Tunisia wished to make a statement at the present 
meeting as  part of the transparent approach t aken by Tunisia at recent DSB meetings to review the 
status of the consultations with Morocco launched in September 2021 in order to find common 
ground in the dispute : "Morocco – Definitive Anti -Dumping Measures on School Exercise Books from 
Tunisia" (DS57 8). In this regard, the Tunisian delegation welcome d the fact that the consultations 
between the two parties were currently  being conducted under the aegis of the DSB Chair. Tunisia 
wished to  take this opportunity to thank Ambassador  Chambo vey for his initiative to invite both 
parties to a meeting on 14  December  2021, and the Secretariat for coordinating and organizing that 
meeting.  Tunisia  also appreciate d that Morocco had agreed to join these consultations proposed by 
the DSB Chair. Tunisia  believe d that, under the leadership of Ambassador Chambovey, the parties 
would be able to quickly find a common path towards a mutually satisfactory solution.  The virtual 
meeting of 14 December  2021, which had been  attended by the heads of the two Mission s and 
representatives of the departments responsible for trade in both countries , was very promising, and 
had allowed the Tunisian  delegation to reaffirm its constructive and open approach to this process. 
In particular, Tunisia had proposed the use of an appeal procedure pursuant to Article 25 of the DSU 
that would, if necessary, allow Morocco to defend its case before a functioning Appellate Body. It 
also provided an opportunity for the Moroccan  authority responsible for trade to notify Tunisia  of, 
among other things, the progress made by its relevant services in revising the calculation of the 
dumping margin in accordance with the conclusions of the Panel Report, and to indicate that Morocco 
remain ed open to discus sing, on the basis of the results of the ongoing bilateral technical discussions, 
other alternatives aimed at achieving a final outcome to this dispute.  Finally , Tunisia would  ensure 
to be prepare d constructively for the second meeting that the Chairman  had proposed for the week 
of 10 January  2022, while remaining open to any contacts  with the Moroccan side to maintain this 
positive momentum at the next meeting. In that regard, Tunisia would appreciate it if the Secretariat 
could  propose a date for the meeting before the end -of-year break to allow  the parties to better 
coordinate and prepare.  
6.3.  The representative of Morocco  said that t he Moroccan delegation was pleased to see a 
fraternal  atmosphere and constructive spirit between the two parties in spite of the fact that the 
appeal procedure had been  suspended. Morocco  had always tried to find an amicable solution to this 
dispute and wished to reiterate that it attach ed importance to dialo gue. Morocco wished  to thank , 
once again , the Chairman  of the DSB  for his initiative of inviting  both parties to a meeting on 
14 December  2021, with a view  to find ing an amicable solution to th is dispute . During that bilateral 
meeting, both parties had goo d faith discussions as well as pragmatic discussions regarding different 
options to break the stalemate. As stated  during the consultations, Morocco  was looking into 
adjust ments that it could make to the measure at issue, taking into account the panel's 
recommendations . Considering  the time and effort that this exercise required , particularly the 
conditions surrounding  the pandemic, a lot of progress  had been made  and competent authorities 
would be in a position to propose adjustments to Tunisia. Finally , Morocco trusted that both parties 
would reach an agreement to resolve this dispute to avoid future problems surrounding this issue. 
Morocco thank ed the Chairman and the Secretariat for organizing  the meeting.   
6.4.  The Chairman  said that, a s stated by Tunisia and Morocco , on 14 December 2021, a virtual 
meeting had been  held between the parties to this dispute  with the participants from Geneva and  
the respective  capital s. He hoped that this dialogue would continue so that a mutually satisfactory 
solution could be found . He said that t he Secretariat would be in touch with the delegations in order 
to propose  the next steps in this process.  
6.5.  The DSB took note  of the statements.  WT/DSB/M/45 9 
- 10 - 
  7  UNITED STATES – ANTI -DUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTIES ON RIPE OLIVES 
FROM SPAIN  
A. Report of the Panel (WT/DS577/R and WT/DS577/R/ADD.1)  
7.1.  The Chair man recall ed that at its meeting on 24 June 2019, the DSB had established a panel 
to examine the complaint by the Eu ropean Union pertaining to this dispute. The Report of the 
Panel  contained in document WT/DS577/R and  WT/DS577/R /Add.1 had been  circulated on 
19 November  2021 as an unrestricted document. The  Panel Report was before the DSB at the 
present meeting for adoption at the request of the European Union. Th e adoption procedure was 
without prejudice to the right of Members to express their views on the Panel Report . 
7.2.  The representative of the European Union  said that t he European Union  wished  to thank the 
Panel and the WTO Secretariat for their work in this dispute. The Panel Report had substantially 
upheld the EU's claims and had largely confirmed that in imposing the  anti-subsidy duties on ripe 
olives from Spain, the United States had  acted inconsistently with the WTO Agreement on Subsidies 
and Countervailing Measures (ASCM). The Panel Report  had found that the United States  did not 
comply with its obligation in the determination of de jure  specificity and in the calculation of the 
subsidy benefit for one specific EU company. The Panel Report had also found that Section 771B of 
the Tariff Act of 1930, which presume d that the entire benefit of a subsidy provided in respect of a 
raw agricultural product had passe d through to the downstream processed agricultural product, was 
"as such" inconsistent with the ASCM.  The European Union  expec ted that the United States would  
promptly a nd fully implement the Panel's findings.  
7.3.  The representative of the United States  said that t he United States wished to thank the Panel, 
and the Secretariat staff assisting it, for their work in this dispute. The United States acknowledged 
the Panel's thor ough review of the legal arguments put forward by the parties, and while it was 
disappointed in certain respects, it welcomed the Panel's findings on key issues in this dispute. 
The European Union had brought numerous claims regarding anti -dumping and coun tervailing duties 
on ripe olives from Spain, as well as one statutory provision. The Panel had rightly rejected many of 
those claims, including key EU claims relating to injury and so -called "decoupled" payments. First, 
the United States appreciated the Pa nel's rejection of all eight claims concerning the US International 
Trade Commission's injury determination. For example, the Panel had agreed with the United States 
that nothing in Articles 15.1 and 15.2 of the SCM Agreement or Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the  Anti-
Dumping Agreement prohibited an investigating authority from paying particular attention to one 
segment of the domestic industry in its injury analysis. And as a factual matter, the USITC had not 
excluded certain segments of the domestic industry in its analysis. Furthermore, the USITC had 
properly considered whether there had been a significant increase in the volume of subsidized and 
dumped imports, and was not required to make a finding of absolute or relative volume increase, 
pursuant to Article 1 5.2 of the SCM Agreement or Article 3.2 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement. The 
Panel had also agreed that the USITC had considered all of the relevant economic factors having a 
bearing on the state of the entire domestic industry, established a causal link bet ween subject 
imports and injury to the domestic industry, and accounted for any injury caused by factors other 
than subject imports as part of its non -attribution analysis. Accordingly, the European Union had 
failed to make out its claims under Articles 15 .1, 15.2, 15.4, and 15.5 of the SCM Agreement and 
Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, and 3.5 of the Anti -Dumping Agreement. The United States was gratified that 
the Panel had agreed with it, and had rejected all of the EU's injury claims. (See, e.g., para. 7.319.) 
Second, the United  States welcomed the Panel's narrow findings with respect to specificity. While 
the United States disagreed with the Panel’s conclusion that the US Department of Commerce had 
erred in certain aspects of its factual evaluation, the Panel cor rectly rejected the EU's broader 
challenge regarding the proper interpretation of Article 2 of the SCM Agreement. Contrary to certain 
comments, including in press reports, the Panel had rejected the EU position that so -called 
"decoupled" agricultural payme nts could not be subject to countervailable duties . 
7.4.  In particular, and contrary to certain characterizations of these findings, the Panel had not 
found that the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) programs at issue were outside the scope of the 
SCM Agreement. To the contrary, the Panel rejected the EU's argume nts that the legal  design of the 
CAP – in particular, "decoupling" subsidies from current production or basing them on an earlier 
reference program – meant the subsidies conferred could not be countervailed. (See, e.g., paras. 
7.30-7.33, 7.37 -7.39, 7.51 -7.52, 7.85, and 7.124.) In doing so, the Panel had similarly rejected the 
EU argument that decoupled "Green Box" subsidies under the Agreement on Agriculture were not 
actionable under the SCM Agreement. The Panel had found that Article 2.1(a) did not prescri be WT/DSB/M/45 9 
- 11 - 
  particular facts or factors that may or may not be taken into account by an investigating authority, 
or any particular methodology or analytical approach in evaluating that information .  
7.5.  Thus, on those two core issues in this Panel proceeding, injury an d countervailing so -called 
"decoupled" payments, the Panel had disagreed with the very premise of the EU's claims. The United 
States said that it was disappointed with other of the Panel's findings, however, and in  particular its 
findings on a US statute r elated to the calculation of subsidies for certain processed agricultural 
products. By  enacting Section 771B, the US Congress had sought to eliminate the possibility that "a 
foreign nation could avoid US countervailing duty on an agricultural product merel y by doing some 
minor processing of the agricultural product before it was exported to the United  States".2 The 
United  States was evaluating the Panel's findings with a view to ensuring that countervailing duties 
accounted for the economic realities of tr ade in raw agricultural products and processed downstream 
products. Although the United States was disappointed with certain of the Panel's findings, on 
balance, it had decided to permit the report to be adopted at the present meeting. The United States 
had taken this step in light of all the circumstances, including the overall quality of the panel report 
and its desire to work with the European Union to resolve this dispute. The United States wished to 
thank Members for their attention to this statement . 
7.6.  The representative of Canada  said that Canada wished to thank  the members of the Panel and 
the WTO  Secretariat for their hard work in this dispute. Canada wished  to highlight one important 
aspect of the Panel 's findings and recommendations. The Panel had confirmed that, under 
Article  VI:3 of the GATT 1994 and Article 10 of the SCM Agreement, an investigating authority would 
have to  establish the existence and the extent of indirect subsidization, taking into account all 
relevant factors, in order to impose countervailing duties. An investigating authority therefore could 
not merely presume that the entire benefit of a subsidy provid ed in respect of an input product had 
passe d through to the downstream processed product.  
7.7.  The DSB took note  of the statements and adopted  the Panel Report contained in WT/DS577/R 
and Add.1.  
8  APPELLATE BODY APPOINTMENTS : PROPOSAL BY AFGHANISTAN ; A NGOLA ; 
ARGENTINA ; AUSTRALIA ; BANGLADESH ; BENIN ; PLURINATIONAL STATE OF BOLIVIA ; 
BOTSWANA ; BRAZIL ; BURKINA FASO ; BURUNDI ; CABO VERDE ; CAMBODIA; CAMEROON ; 
CANADA ; CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC ; CHAD; CHILE ; CHINA ; COLOMBIA ; CONGO ; COSTA 
RICA ; CÔTE D 'IVOIRE ; CUBA; DEMOCRATI C 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, 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. 20) 
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 drew attention to the proposal contained in 
document WT/DSB/W/609/Rev. 20 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. 20, said that the delegations in question had agreed to 
submit the joint proposal, dated 18 November 2021 to launch the selection processes for the 
vacancies of the Appellate Body members. On behalf of those 12 2 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 Appe llate 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 
 
2 See 133 Congressional Record S8814  (Exhibit USA -9) at S8815. See also  Issues and Decision Memo 
for Final Determination C -469-818 (Exhibit EU -2), p. 23.  WT/DSB/M/45 9 
- 12 - 
  multilateral trad ing 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 processes  (one process to 
replace Mr . Ricardo Ramírez -Hernández, whose second term had expired on 30 June 2017; a second 
process to fill the vacancy resulted from the resignation of Mr . Hyun Chong Kim with effect from 
1 August  2017; a third process to replace Mr . Peter Van den Bossche, whose second term had 
expired on 11 December 2017; a fourth process to replace Mr . Shree Baboo Chekitan Servansing, 
whose four -year term of office had expired on 30 September  2018; a fifth process to replace Mr . Ujal 
Singh Bhatia, who se 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 candidates. 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 dispute settlement system and the multilateral trading system . 
8.3.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States was not in a position to 
support the proposed decision. The United States conti nued to have systemic concerns with the 
Appellate Body. As Members knew, the United States had raised and explained its systemic concerns 
for more than 16 years and across multiple US Administrations. The United States believed that 
Members had to undertak e fundamental reform if the system was to remain viable and credible. 
The dispute settlement system could and should support rather than undermine the WTO's 
negotiating and monitoring functions. The United States looked forward to further discussions with 
Members on those important issues . 
8.4.  The representative of the European Union  said that t he European Union wished to refer  to its 
previous statements made on this issue. Since 11 December 2019, the WTO no longer guarantee d 
access to a binding, two -tier, inde pendent 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 su ch 
a system and proceeding to the appointment of the members of the Appellate Body. This task should 
be addressed as a priority. As the European Union  had consistently noted, WTO Members had 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 European Union  agree d that a meaningful reform was 
needed in order to achieve this objective. The Europea n 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 had 
co-sponsored the propo sal to launch the appointment processes.  
8.5.  The representative of Japan  said that Japan wished to refer to its statements made at the 
previous DSB meetings and support ed the proposal. Japan share d the sense of urgency for reform 
of the dispute settlement sys tem. As Japan ha d stated consistently, Japan consider ed that the 
utmost priority was to achieve an expeditious reform that would  contribute to a long -lasting solution 
to the structural and functional problems of the dispute settlement system. Therefore , every WTO 
Member, as the owner of the system, had to  take seriously the current situation where in the 
Appellate Body had virtually  ceased its operation a long time ago, and meanwhile, a number of cases 
had been appealed into the void. Furthermore, Japan consider ed it essential that every WTO Member 
re-start constructive discussions on the reform of the dispute settlement system, incl uding on how 
to address the concerns surrounding the Appellate Body.  Japan would spare  no efforts to collaborate 
with all WTO Members to that end . 
8.6.  The representative of Morocco , speaking  on behalf of the African Group , said that  the 
African  Group wished  to refer to its previous statements made on this matter and commend ed the 
delegation of Mexico for its statements on the proposal for Appellate Body appointments. The African 
Group continue d to regret that up to now, the DSB ha d failed to fulfil its functions under the DSU 
which was to fill vacancies as they ar ose. The African Group urge d the DSB to urgent ly fulfil its 
obligation under the DSU so as to ensure the predictability within the multilateral trading system. 
The African Group urged  all Members who had yet to co -sponsor this proposal to do so as soon as 
possible.  WT/DSB/M/45 9 
- 13 - 
  8.7.  The representative of India said tha t India wished to refer to its statements made on this issue 
at previous DSB meetings. From 11 December 2019 onwards , the WTO no longer provide d access 
to a binding two -stage independent resolution  of trade disputes  as there had been  no standing 
Appellate Body to hear appeals from panel cases. India request ed all WTO Members to resolve this 
matter and work on filling the outstanding vacancies as set out in Article 17.2 of the DSU.  
8.8.  The representative of China  said that China support ed the statement made  by Mexico on behalf 
of the 122 co -sponsors and call ed upon more Members to join this proposal. China referred to its 
previous statements on this urgent matter and reiterate d its firm commitment to an independent 
and impartial two -tier d ispute 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 ha d been appealed 
into the void. This unsustainable situation not only deprive d Members ' right to de fend their interests , 
but also jeopardize d the security and predictability of this rules -based Organization. 
China  appreciate d the hard work undertaken by Members under the capable leadership of the 
General Council  Chair in preparation for the MC12 outcome  document, in particular the progress 
made on paragraph 8 on the dispute settlement system. In spite of postponement of MC12, China  
urged all Members to maintain the positive momentum and to engage in constructive discussions 
with a view to having a fully and well -functioning dispute settlement system by MC13 .  
8.9.  The representative of Indonesia  said that I ndonesia wishe d to refer to its previous statements 
made  at the previous DSB meetings with regard to this Agenda  item. Indonesia  wished to  again 
avail itself of this opportunity to urge all Members to focus their serious attention, willingness, and 
commitment towards  the immediate appointment of the Appellate Body members . 
8.10.   The representative of Canada  said that this  was an extremely important issue . Canada 
reiterate d its support for th e AB proposal and referred  to its statements made on this issue at 
previous DSB meetings.  
8.11.   The representative of the United Kingdom  said that t he United Kingdom continue d to support 
the laun ch of the process for appointments to the Appellate Body.  The United Kingdom said that  it 
was the time for the whole  WTO Membership to commit urgently to ensuring the full functioning of 
the dispute settlement system and to work together to make that a rea lity. The United Kingdom  
welcome d the progress that had been  made in the run up to the Ministerial Conference before it was 
postponed . Members wished to maintain that momentum.  An effective dispute settlement system 
benefit ted all Members . It ensure d that the rules Members  had negotiated were enforceable, and in 
doing so, contribute d to realising the benefits of trade liberali zation.  It serve d as a backstop against 
WTO-inconsistent trade practices, and it help ed to create a more predictable and stable trading 
environment.  The United Kingdom  would  continue to work with other Members on this important 
matter.  
8.12.   The representative of the Russian Federation  said that the Russian Federation wished to  refer 
to its previo us statements made on this matter and thank ed Mexico and co -sponsors for their 
continuous and faithful commitment to the appointment processes of the Appellate Body members. 
Russia reiterate d its strong support for launching the AB appointment processes im mediately. At the 
same time, the Russian Federation call ed upon all Members to engage in urgent constructive 
discussions towards fully function al dispute settlement system as soon as possible.  
8.13.   The representative of Thailand  said that,  like many previous speakers , Thailand  support ed the 
statement made by Mexico on behalf of the co -sponsors of the AB proposal . Thailand  wished  to refer 
to its previous statements  made  at previous DSB meetings and reiterate d its concerns  about  the 
long absence of a fu lly functio nal Appellate Body. As one of the Members with pending appeals, 
Thailand  had already felt the impact of this impasse in the WTO system . In Thailand's view, t he 
continued filing of appeals by Members before the Appellate  Body was a clear demonstr ation of the 
importance of the two -tier, binding dispute settlement system, which was an integral part of the 
core elements of the WTO. Thailand,  therefore , renew ed its call on all Members to continue 
intensified effort s towards  finding ways forward while being  fully committed to solution -oriented 
discussions . 
8.14.   The representative of Brazil  said that Brazil wished to thank Mexico for present ing the proposal 
on behalf of the co-sponsors  and once again referred to its previous statements made under this 
Agenda item. In preparation for MC12, the Membership  had seen  encouraging signs of willingness WT/DSB/M/45 9 
- 14 - 
  from Members to engage  in meaningful discussions aimed at finding a concrete solution to this 
impasse as a matter of priority. Brazil hoped  that such discussions could  begin shortly. Brazil was  
prepared to undertake these discussions in a constructive manner and look ed forward to engaging 
with all Members in th at spirit.  
8.15.   The representative of Norway  said that Norway full y support ed the joint proposal submitted  
by Mexico, and co -sponsored by 122 Members. Norway wished  to refer to its previous  statements  
made  in this regard. Norway was ready to engage in urgent ly needed discussions to re -establish a 
fully functioning dispute settlement system as soon as possible.  
8.16.   The representative of Switzerland  said that Switzerland  wished to refer to its statements made 
on this matter at previous DSB meetings. A fully functiona l appeals  stage was in everyone's interest, 
and Switzerland  hoped that fresh impetus could  be given 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.  
8.17.   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 constructively engage on th ese issues with a view to 
addressing this situation as a priority, in order to restore a fully functioning dispute settlement 
system . 
8.18.   The repr esentative of Iceland  sad that, a s one of the many co -sponsors to th e AB proposal, 
Iceland was concerned about  the long -standing lack of progress in filling the vacancies of the 
Appellate  Body. Iceland view ed a two -step, independent and impartial WTO dispu te settlement 
system as a key feature providing predictability and securing a fair playing field for all participants 
of the multilateral trading system. Iceland,  therefore , called on all Members to engage constructively 
to solve this impasse without furth er delay.  
8.19.   The representative of Korea  said that Korea wished to thank  Mexico and reiterate d its support 
for the joint AB proposal . Korea also wished to  refer 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 , and Korea, as a firm supporter 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 . 
8.20.   The representative of Australia  said that , at the end of a challenging year, it  was 
understandable to look back . However, in Australia 's view, it was critical that Members  move d 
forward, re -doubling its efforts to engage all Members, including at the political level, to revitalise 
and reform the dispute settlement system. In moving forward, as others had stated, Members  should 
harness the momentum and unity they had achieved in 2021  on this vital reform issue. That mean t 
locking  in the gains made during the Ministerial Declaration negotiations especially Members ' shared 
commitment to addressing the challenges and concerns with the dispute settlement system within 
a concrete and reasonable time -frame. That also mean t building on this constructive and flexible 
spirit to resolve any obstacles to securing a multilateral mandate for meaningful reform discussions 
as soon as possible in 2022. The longer the current situation remain ed – with a growing number of 
disputes unable to be finalised – the greater the cost to the Membership. Australia noted  that thus 
far more than 20 appeals  had been notified  before the non -functioning Appellate Body . A clear trend 
was emerging, given that every panel report with substanti ve findings released since 
10 December  2019, had been appealed into the void – although Australia  greatly welcome d the news 
from the United States at the present meeting  that it would  proceed to adopt the report in DS577. 
Members should be empowered to find mutually agreed solutions to their disputes and if that was 
not possible, the exercise of their appeal rights was a course of action available to them. But a 
system that was not abl e to deliver binding resolution of disputes was not in the Members'  collective 
interests  as it impair ed the rights of many Members under the WTO Agreements. And if 
dispute  settlement reform continue d to drift, serious questions would  be asked about the val ue of 
existing rules that could not  be enforced through the WTO adjudicatory function. Therefore, as 2022 
was approach ing, Australia  wished to encourage Members to move forward with renewed 
commitment and resolve to deliver a fully and well -functioning dis pute settlement system by MC13 . 
Australia would  do its upmost to help deliver this shared objective . WT/DSB/M/45 9 
- 15 - 
  8.21.   The representative of Singapore  said that  Singapore thank ed Mexico for its statement which 
it strongly support ed. Singapore wished to reiterat e its previous statements made on this matter 
and urge d all Members, including the United States, to commence constructive discussions urgently 
with a view to restor ing a fully functioning dispute settlement system .  
8.22.   The representative of Malaysia  said that Malaysia wished  to thank Mexico for its statement, 
which it support ed. Malaysia  also wished to refer to its statements made  at previous DSB  meetings 
regarding th is Agenda item and reiterate d its strong support to wards  restor ing a fully functioning 
dispute settlement system.  
8.23.   The representative of Mexico , speaking  on behalf of the 12 2 co-sponsors, regret ted that for 
the forty -ninth occasion, Members had  still not been able to start the selection processes for the 
vacancies of the Appellate  Body, and thus had continuously failed to fulfill their duty as Members of 
this Organization. The fact that a Member may have  had concerns about certain aspects of the 
functioning of the Appellate Body could not serve as  a pretext to impair and disrupt th e work of this 
body and dispute settlement in general. There was no legal justification for the current blocking of 
the selection processes, which nullifi ed and impaire d the rights of  many Members. As Article 17.2 of 
the DSU clearly stat ed, "vacancies shall be filled as they arise ". No discussion should prevent the 
Appellate Body from continuing to operate fully and Members shall comply with their obligation under 
the DSU to fill the vacancies. Mexico  noted with deep concern that by failing to  act at the present 
meeting , the Appellate Body w ould continue to be unable to perform its functions against the best 
interest of all Members . 
8.24.   The representative of Mexico  said that for more than two years, Members had been requesting 
that the joint AB proposal be  adopted  by the DSB so that their right to appeal could be preserved as 
set out in the DSU. Mexico wished to refer to its previous statements made on this matter and 
continued to express its deep concern as Members were faced with an unprecedented situation, 
namely, an inoperative Appellate Body . As Members  had seen at recent DSB meetings, ongoing  
disputes were being affected by not having a fully functioning two -tier dispute settlement system, 
putting at risk the prompt compliance with the recommen dations of panel reports . Mexico wished to 
highlight that when the Ministerial Conference were to  take place this would be an opportunity to 
give a signal to start working on a real multilateral solution. This was an urgent matter and Mexico 
called on other Members who had not yet done so to join the  AB proposal. Mexico remained ready 
to work construc tively towards achieving a true multilateral solution.  
8.25.   The Chairman  thanked all delegations for their statements and said that, a s in the past , the 
statements would be reflected in the minutes of the present meeting . The Chairman recalled  that, 
as Members were aware , as part of the preparatory work for MC12 , a process had been  led by the 
Chair man of the General Council with a view to resolving thi s matter . The Chairman  hoped that 
Members would  be able to find a solution to this issue as soon as possible.  
8.26.   The DSB took note  of the statements . 
9  REPORT BY THE FACILITATOR ON PROGRESS IN THE FACILITATOR -ASSISTED 
DISCUSSIONS IN THE DS371 DISPUTE  
9.1.  The Chairman  said that, as announced at the outset of the meeting, he wished to invite 
Ambassador George Mina of Australia,  the Facilitator in the DS371 dispute,  to make a report on 
progress in the Facilitator -assisted discussions  in the DS371 dispute.  
9.2.  The Facilitator  in the DS371 dispute , Ambassador Mina of Australia, speaking under 
"Other  Business ", recalled  that in a report to the DSB,  dated 31 March 2021 contained in 
WT/D5371/45, he had  provided an update on the DS371 Facilitator -assisted discussions, in 
accordance with paragraph 5 of the 21 December 2020 Understanding between the Philippines and 
Thailand on the DS371 Facilitator -assisted discussions contained in WT/D5371/44. As part of that 
report, he had  advised the DSB that, after consulting with the parties, it was his intention to 
recommend continu ation the discussions up to 31 July 2021. At the DSB meeting on 26 July 2021, 
he had made a brief statement under "Other Business " in whic h he updated the DSB on the 
Facilitator -assisted discussions and had advised that the discussions  would need to be extended 
beyond 31 July 2021. The Facilitator  was pleased to report at the present meeting that the parties 
had continued to engage construct ively with him and with each other in these discussions. There WT/DSB/M/45 9 
- 16 - 
  had been good  engagement between officials in capitals. As  a result of that engagement,  and 
pursuant to the parties' goal to complete the Facilitator -assisted  process by October  2021, he had, 
under his own responsibility as Facilitator, forwarded a draft proposal on 29  October 2021 on the 
basis of which the parties had been negotiating a confidential interim arrangement through which 
the parties would be able to continue their dialogue on a regu lar basis in the new year to support 
and facilitate the parties' efforts to reach a comprehensive settlement of their dispute, consistent 
with their obligations under the Customs  Valuation Agreement, the GATT  1994 and other covered 
agreements, as well as t he recommendations and rulings of the DSB. In other words,  the process 
was going well. The interim arrangement also provide d for the possibility that the parties may notify 
the DSB of a mutually agreed solution under Article 3.6 of the DSU.  He said that he would like to 
take this opportunity to thank the Secretariat : Mr John Adank, Ms Michelle Healy and Ms Bozena 
Mueller -Holyst , for their extraordinary assistance in supporting him as Facilitator in this dispute and 
the parties. They had done an enormous amount of work  in this process. Through this process, it 
had been discovered that there were workarounds to the absence of an a ppeals function and that 
such workarounds would requir e good co -operation between the parti es, which was clearly the 
evidence in this dispute. However, this was not an efficient or easy process. It had taken  enormous 
amount s of work to engage in the proces ses such as this. Therefore, he wished to thank the 
Secretariat for its quite extraordinary support.  He also wished to commen d the parties for their 
co-operation, their commitment and their dedication to the task.  He said that he looked forward to 
keeping the DSB updated on further progress to be made by the parties in the period ahead and 
commend ed the parties for the ir cooperation and commitment they ha d demonstrated in the process 
to date . 
9.3.  The Chairman  thank ed Ambassador Mina for his report  on the Facilitator -led process and for  
his efforts towards finding a mutually satisfactory solution to this dispute . As stated by the Facilitator, 
a lot of work had been done towards finding a solution to this dispute. He was pleased to note the 
good will  of both parties , as underscored  by the Facilitator.  Finally, he thanked the Facilitator and 
the Secretariat for their commitment and efforts  in this process.   
9.4.  The DSB took note  of the statements  and of the report by the Facilitator on progress in the 
Facilitator -assisted discussions in the DS371 dispute . 
__________